Local Government Employment Digest

Number 336 March 05

In the March Digest:

- Survey of Apprenticeship Take-up in local authorities 2004
- Survey of People Management in local government 2005
- Hours and Holiday 2005
- Budget 2005: Labour Market implications

Local Government Employment Digest provides information on labour market and pay and conditions issues, as well as brief negotiating reports across all local government groups, and survey results. In addition, it looks at all the latest statistics on pay and provides a round up of the state of the economy.

It is produced by the Research and Intelligence section (R&I) of the Employers’ Organisation as part of its information service.

PLEASE NOTE: From April 2005, the Digest will become an online-only publication. In order to receive a free electronic copy, please complete the sign up form at the weblink below: http://www.lg-employers.gov.uk/alert/php/action/signup_controller.php

© The Employers’ Organisation for Local Government ISSN 0957-512X

Employers’ Organisation – Local Government Digest March 2005 Contents

Summary Statistics 3

1 Features 1.1 Economy 6 1.2 Survey of Apprenticeship Take-up in Local Authorities 2004 8 1.3 Survey of People Management in local government 2005 12 1.4 Hours and Holiday 2005 17 1.5 Press Summary 21 1.6 Budget 2005: Labour market implications 22

2 Pay and Earnings 2.1 Pay Trends 25 2.2 Average Earnings Index 27 2.3 Recent Pay Settlements 28 2.4 Market Pay Service – Extract 5 29

3 Prices 3.1 Retail Price Index 35 3.2 House Price Indices 36

4 Labour Market 4.1 Unemployment 37 4.2 Employment 39

5 Local Government 5.1 Local Government Datafile 40 5.2 Employee Jobs in Local Government 41 5.3 Current Position of Negotiating Groups 44

6 Publications 6.1 Recent and Forthcoming Publications 47 6.2 Research & Intelligence Publications 48

One copy is circulated free to all local authorities in England and Wales each month. Additional copies are available on subscription to local authorities, other organisations and individuals. Back copies are available from Roopal Shah at The Employers’ Organisation.

Please note: authoritative information and advice on national negotiations are provided by separate pay circulars, employer information, bulletins, etc. Summary Statistics

AVERAGE EARNINGS INDEX (Base Rate 2000=100)

| | Index | Headline Rate\* | |----------|-------|----------------| | | Jan | Dec | Nov | Jan | Dec | Nov | | Wh. Econ. | 122.8 | 118.6 | 118.9 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.2 | | Priv. Sec. | 122.9 | 117.7 | 118.1 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.1 | | Pub. Sec. | 122.7 | 122.2 | 121.9 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | | Manuf. | 117.6 | 117.7 | 116.6 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.1 | | Services | 124.1 | 117.7 | 119.2 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.3 |

Next statistics: 13th April 2005. \*Average of seasonally adjusted series over latest three months.

PRICES

| | All items | Underlying\* | |----------|-----------|-------------| | | Feb | Jan | Dec | Feb | Jan | Dec | | RPI | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.5 | | TPI | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.5 | | CPI | 1.6 | 1.6 |

Next statistics: 19th April 2005.

- Excludes mortgage interest.

LABOUR MARKET (thousands)

| | Nov-Jan | Aug-Oct | May-Jul | |----------|---------|---------|---------| | Unempl. UK | 1,410 | 1,388 | 1,418 | | Unempl. GB\* | 1,376 | 1,352 | 1,378 | | Total in empl. UK | 28,567 | 28,440 | 28,385 | | Total in empl. GB\* | 27,818 | 27,700 | 27,656 |

| | Feb | Jan | Dec | |----------|-----|-----|-----| | Claimant Count UK | 813.3 | 814.0 | 824.2 | | Claimant Count GB\* | 784.3 | 784.3 | 797.2 |

- Labour Force Survey figures have been re-weighted for individual regions to take account of the 2001 Census results.

AEI FORECASTS

| | Range | Mean | |----------|-------|------| | Whole economy | 3.6% - 5.0% | 4.3% | | 2005 (I) | 4.0% - 4.9% | 4.5% |

Based on 10 forecasts, source IRS.

RPI FORECASTS (All items)

| | Range | Mean | |----------|-------|------| | Quarter | 3.1% - 3.5% | 3.3% | | 2005 (I) | 3.0% - 3.5% | 3.2% |

Based on 10 forecasts, source IRS.

SETTLEMENTS

| | (Whole economy median over the three months to January 2005) | |----------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | IRS | 3.3% | | IDS | 3.3% | | EEF | 2.7% (Mean in the three months to January 2005) | | LRD | 3.5% (Whole economy median over three months to January 2005) |

- The CBI no longer publishes pay figures. We now quote the Engineering Employers Federation (EEF) quarterly figures for the manufacturing sector. Pay Settlements, Movements & Negotiations

The British Chambers of Commerce Quarterly Economic Survey - Quarter 3, 2004

- **Exports**: The export market is measured by volume of sales and volume of orders. After a strong showing in quarter 1 the manufacturing sector’s balance of exports showed mixed movements in quarter 2, but remained relatively strong. However in quarter 3 the proportion of manufacturing’s export sales fell. Export orders fell more sharply, levelling order levels to their lowest since quarter 3 2003. The services sector showed mixed results with export sales rising slightly and orders falling slightly.

- **Investment**: Investment intentions are measured by investment in plant & machinery and investment in training. There was a slight dip in the balance of manufacturing and services firms that intend to invest in Q2 compared with Q1. In quarter 3 this balance turned with a doubling in the proportion of firms planning to increase investment in plant and machinery. However, the proportion of firms planning to invest in training declined slightly.

- **Business confidence**: Business confidence is a key reflector of the economic climate. Turnover confidence and profitability confidence are the two yardsticks for measuring business confidence. Both manufacturing and services saw falls in turnover confidence and profitably confidence in the second quarter while falls for services were negligible. In quarter 3 turnover confidence in manufacturing and services fell further. Turnover confidence for manufacturing was at its lowest since quarter 1, 2003.

**Total Employee jobs in Local Government* - June 2004*\*

| | England | Wales | |----------------------|---------|-------| | Education – Teachers | 515,930 | 37,313| | Education – Others | 726,615 | 47,611| | Social Services | 288,006 | 27,724| | Services Direct to the Public | 412,971 | 39,543| | Corporate Functions | 176,652 | 11,884| | Total | 2,120,174 | 164,074|

Source: Employers’ Organisation Local Government Employment Survey

**NEGOTIATIONS – CURRENT POSITIONS**

Group: Teachers in Residential Establishments (E&W)

Settlement: The JNC agreed that the Main and Upper Pay Scales for qualified teachers in residential social services establishments should be subject to a general increase of 2.5% from 1 April 2004, 2.5% from 1 April 2005, and a further 0.75% from 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006.

All allowances applicable to teachers in social services establishments and Heads, deputies and Assistant heads in residential special schools were increased by the same percentage amounts as were the salaries.

**CURRENT PAY MOVEMENTS**

- Ibstock Building Products- 3.25% basic pay rise (1,400 hourly paid, 400 staff).
- S4C- 3.4% basic pay increase, subject to minimum rise of £500 a year (210).
- Tandridge District Council- 3.1% increase (340).

Note: BCC data is updated quarterly. For further information please contact: Cheryl Lloyd – Tel: 020 7296 6656 Abbreviations

| Abbreviation | Description | |--------------|-------------| | Wh. Econ. | Whole economy | | Priv. Sec. | Private sector | | Pub. Sec. | Public sector | | Manuf. | Manufacturing | | AEI | Average Earnings Index | | IRS | Industrial Relations Services | | IDS | Incomes Data Services Ltd | | EO | Employers’ Organisation | | CBI | Confederation of British Industry | | EEF | Engineering Employers Federation | | LRD | Labour Research Department | | RPI | Retail Prices Index | | TPI | Tax and Price Index | | S.adjusted | Seasonally adjusted | | CPI | Consumer Price Index | | LGS | Local Government Services |

Glossary

Average Earnings Index

The Average Earnings Index is calculated from a monthly survey of some 9 million employees across the economy. The Survey obtains details of gross wages and salaries paid to employees and so increases in the average earnings index include increases in bonus payments, payments by results, etc. as well as increases in basic pay.

‘Seasonally adjusted’ average earnings adjust actual monthly earnings to eliminate the effects of annual peaks and troughs, such as traditional periods of high overtime. The headline rate of increase in average earnings, which is given in this bulletin, is the average of the seasonally adjusted increases over the latest three months.

Retail Price Index

The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measures the average change from month to month in the prices of goods and services purchased by the average UK household. (For further details see the Local Government Employment Digest, July 1992).

Consumer Price Index

CPI is based on an internationally agreed measure of inflation and contains a different basket of goods to RPI (X). The main difference is CPI excludes the costs of owner-occupied housing (building insurance, council tax) and house prices. The CPI replaces the underlying rate of inflation (RPIX) as inflationary measure to be targeted by the Bank of England.

Tax and Price Index

The Tax and Price Index measures the change in gross income needed for taxpayers to maintain their purchasing power. It thus allows for changes to direct taxes and employees’ National Insurance Contributions, as well as changes in the Retail Prices Index.

ILO Unemployment

ILO unemployment is based on the international definition of unemployment, which counts as unemployed all those without works, who is seeking work and are available to start work.

Claimant Count

The claimant count measure of unemployment is an administrative count of those eligible to receive unemployment-related benefits. Economy

Interest rates have remained at 4.75% following the MPC meeting on 9th/10th March and it seems more likely that any rate rise will occur after rather than before the election. The CBI believes that there is a growing inflationary pressure from the high price of oil and an ever-tightening labour market. Housing market data has failed to lift the gloom. The impact of the Budget on the labour markets is assessed in a separate article in Features 1.6.

Interest rates – Remain at 4.75%

The decision to hold interest rates at 4.75% was favoured by seven of the nine members of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC). Two members voted for a rise of 0.25% in the base rate. The MPC appear to be unsure of the strength of the economy and in particular the level of consumer spending. Mervyn King (Governor) has acknowledged that the committee are nervous about consumer spending but retail data seems to be providing little clarity. Consumer spending in January had grown by £2.3bn and credit, overdraft, card purchases and bank loans grew by 46% in January to a seven month high of £2.29bn. However, more recent data from the British Retail Consortium would appear to show that the rate of growth in consumer spending is tailing off. Moreover, the CBI believes that the continuing high cost of oil has yet to be passed onto the prices of consumer goods. If and when these costs are transferred, consumer spending is likely to fall anyway.

Rachel Lomax of the MPC has hinted that the likelihood of an interest rate rise before the election was slim.

Inflationary pressures – from oil

The CBI are claiming that inflationary pressures are building and they predict that the CPI will rise to 1.8% by the end of 2005 and then go beyond 2% by the second half of 2006. The source of this belief is the persistently high price of crude oil. The price of Brent crude is 51% higher in February 2005 than in January 2004 and ONS data has shown that producer input costs have risen by 9.5% over the year to January. So far, consumers have only seen the impact of this at the petrol pump and through increased utility bills whilst global competition has prevented consumer prices rising in the short-term. OPEC’s attempts to increase the production of oil by agreeing to an increase of 500,000 barrels per day appear to have had no effect on reducing the price of oil. It appears that increases in production are being more than matched by increases in demand. Cold weather across the Northern hemisphere and robust economic growth in China and the US have pushed up demand.

The impact of the $50 barrel of oil has hit capital and intermediate goods producers who have passed on the costs to producers of consumer goods who will have to eventually pass on the costs to consumers. In addition to increased utility bills, British Airways announced a fuel surcharge last week of £26 on long-haul flights and £14 on short-haul flights. It remains to be seen if oil prices will drop before manufacturers will raise their prices.

Inflationary pressures – from labour

A longer-term threat to inflation could come from the continuing tightness in the labour market. Levels of employment are at a 34 year high (28.52 million) and the CBI believes that attempts to raise employment further might create upward pressure on earnings growth due to an insufficient supply of labour. The CBI also refer to the continuing skills gap in the economy stating that unfilled job vacancies have increased from 606,500 in January 2004 to 652,300 in January 2005. The releasing of new workers into the labour market (either through greater migration and/or by re-employing those currently not working) may lessen the pressure here but the CBI believes that skill shortages will become more acute over the next two years. Housing – slump continues The Nationwide have put a brave face on their recent housing data that shows that annual housing price inflation has fallen back into the single-digits for the first time in four years. (falling from 10.2% to 7.9%). Picked up more by the media has been the monthly price change, (which is inherently more volatile) which has moved from a growth of 0.5% in February to a decline of 0.6% in March, the largest monthly decline in the Nationwide index since 1995. The Nationwide group economist Alex Bannister has responded by saying that “the data confirms our view that the market is experiencing a soft landing.”

Other sources of data convey a more negative picture. Both the Bank of England and the British Bankers Association (BBA) have reported large falls in mortgage approvals with the BBA reporting a 43% drop to 31,285 from 54,443 a year earlier, the biggest drop on record. Perhaps fuelling this drop in prices is a growing supply of housing due to the rising number of unsold properties. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors state that the number of unsold properties is at it’s highest since March 2003. Both the National Association of Estate Agents and the investment bank Lehman Brothers have argued that they believe the housing market is currently overvalued between 10% & 20%.

The raising of stamp duty from £60,000 to £120,000 is likely to have a limited impact on the housing market but should enable those outside the South of England to make their first purchase more easily.

Nick Shasha Survey of Apprenticeship Take-up in Local Authorities 2004

The Research and Intelligence (R&I) section of the Employers’ Organisation for local government, in partnership with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), conducted the Survey of Apprenticeship Take-up in Local Authorities 2004. It was a follow-up to the 2000 survey and was designed to establish how local government’s involvement in the Apprenticeship scheme has progressed.

Background The need to recruit and train young people within local government, especially in hard-to-fill occupational areas and against the background of an ageing workforce, is a main theme within the Local Government Pay and Workforce Strategy.

The survey was conducted between October and December 2004 with 387 local authorities, 31 combined fire authorities and 149 local education authorities, which were surveyed separately to their corporate counterparts. Responses were obtained from 52.5% of local authorities, 34% of local education authorities and 32.3% of combined fire authorities.

Throughout the survey the term Apprentices has been used both as a reference to apprentices in general and as the Level 2 Apprenticeship. For clarification Table 1 should be used.

Key Findings

Authorities Involvement in the Apprenticeship Programme Over half of respondents had at least one Apprentice (60.6%). A further 21.6% had taken on Apprentices in the past but had no apprentices at the time of the survey, and 17.8% have never had any Apprentices. All responding metropolitan districts were currently engaged with Apprentices. Conversely, less than half of fire authorities (40.0%) were or had been involved.

Number of Apprentices In Winter 2004, just under 5300 Apprentices were engaged with local authorities in England. The number of Apprentices in local government has risen by 22.2% since winter 2000.

33.0% (1,745 Apprentices) of the total (grossed) number of Apprentices were engaged with metropolitan districts, compared with 26.9% of the total local government workforce. Local education authorities, shire counties and unitaries each accounted for around 15% of the total number of Apprentices.

Apprentices were concentrated in authorities in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside, accounting for 49.4% of the total Apprentices, compared with 33% of the total local government workforce.

Distribution of Apprentices Authorities engaged almost double the amount of Apprentices (64.7%) than Advanced Apprentices (35.3%).

Almost one-fifth of Apprentices were engaged in direct services. Around 17% were engaged in Education and across a number of departments. The Business and Administration framework was the most widely adopted (46.0%), followed by Construction (20.9%) and Early Years and Education (11.4 %)

Less than half of the 160 authorities currently engaged with Apprentices were approved training providers/centres for Apprentices. The proportion was higher for local education authorities (87.0%) and London Boroughs (66.7%). Shire districts (13.8%) were the only authority type to fall below the all respondent average.

Characteristics of Apprentices Just under two-thirds of the Apprentices for whom information on age was given had started their Apprenticeship when they were 16 or 17 (64.8%). Over one sixth of apprentices were aged 18 (18.0%) and one-tenth were aged 20 or more (9.9%) when they began their Apprenticeship.

Just over half of Apprentices were male (52.7%). The proportion was significantly larger for fire authorities (80.0%) but much smaller for local education authorities (22.7%).

11.3% of Apprentices were from minority ethnic origins. Of the ethnic minorities, Asian or Asian British accounted for the highest proportion (5.2%). London boroughs had higher proportions, with ethnic minorities accounting for 57.9% of Apprentices engaged within London boroughs.

2.5% of all apprentices engaged with local authorities had some form of long-term illness, health problem or disability, which limits their work or daily activities.

**Attitudes towards the Apprenticeship Programme**

The reason authorities cited as being the most important for their decision to implement Apprentices was the “opportunity for young people to achieve recognised national qualifications”. This was followed closely by the “opportunity to provide young people with the appropriate range of skills”. “Opportunity to access government funding” was given as the least important.

The most significant perceived benefit of the Apprenticeship initiative was “to be recognised as a responsible employer taking action for the future”.

All authorities, whatever their current involvement with the scheme, considered “bureaucracy/paperwork” and “the amount of time needed to implement and deliver the programme” as the major drawbacks to the scheme.

**Future Involvement with Apprentices**

The future of the Apprenticeship initiative in local government looks very positive. Only 9 authorities (3.6% of responding authorities) indicated a possible decrease in numbers and 134 (53.6% of responding authorities) forecasted numbers increasing.

This survey highlights both the real and potential benefits of using Apprenticeships as a tool for recruiting and developing younger workers. An ageing workforce (only 8% are aged 24 or under) shows the increasing needs of the sector to promote itself as an employer of choice.

Whilst the survey shows strong take-up in the traditional Apprenticeship areas of Business Administration and Construction (which account for 70.6% of all local authority Apprentices) an increasingly wide choice of frameworks are becoming available. New opportunities range from generic frameworks such as the Advanced Apprenticeship in Management, to the development of new frameworks to cover specific skills shortage areas such as Public Protection (involving environmental health and trading standards). Certainly the creation and application of Adult Apprenticeships, aimed at those aged 22 or over, would offer a new development opportunity to large parts of the local government workforce.

Authorities that use Apprentices find them advantageous and see their involvement increasing. The role of Apprentices in a wider capacity-building strategy can be found in one typical comment: “They have proved a very beneficial method of introducing young people into the organisation who have subsequently developed and moved into more senior and specialist roles e.g. planners, land charges officers and customer services supervisors.” Authorities also see benefits of Apprentices in promoting diversity, succession planning and talent management. This survey shows what is being achieved, and highlights the benefits of engaging an Apprentice. It should serve as a basis for further Apprenticeship involvement over the next few years.

A copy of the executive summary will be sent to all local authorities in England.

For further information please contact: Martin Stein at the Employers’ Organisation, Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG, Tel: 020 7296 6676; Fax: 020 7296 6660; Email: martin.stein@lg-employers.gov.uk; or Ben Hickman at the Employers’ Organisation, Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG, Tel: 020 7296 6171; Fax: 020 7296 6660; Email: ben.hickman@lg-employers.gov.uk.

| Table 1 | Apprenticeships | |---------|-----------------| | Young Apprentices | 14-16 frameworks currently under development | | Apprentices | 16-18 Level 2 frameworks | | Advanced Apprentices | 18-25 Level 3 frameworks | | Adult Apprentices | 22+ frameworks currently under development |

### Survey of Apprenticeship Take-up in Local Authorities 2004: Key Findings

#### Involvement with Apprentices (Proportion of Respondents)

- Currently Involved: 60.6%
- Involved in the Past: 21.6%
- Never been Involved: 17.8%

#### Number of Apprentices (Grossed)

- Apprentices: 3426
- Advanced Apprentices: 1871
- Total Apprentices: 5297

#### Intentions Regarding Future Numbers (Proportion of Respondents)

- Increasing: 53.8%
- Decreasing: 3.6%
- Staying the Same: 42.6%

#### Reasons for Implementation

- **Most Important**
  - Opportunity for young people to achieve recognised national qualifications
  - Opportunity to provide young people with appropriate
- **Least Important**
  - Implementing youth employment strategy
  - Opportunity to access government funding to subsidise training costs

#### Benefits of Apprenticeship Scheme

- **Most Significant**
  - To develop/enhance the organisation’s reputation for developing employees and their careers
  - To be recognised as a responsible employer taking action for the future
- **Least Significant**
  - To recruit local people who understand local circumstances
  - To access government funding to subsidise training costs

#### Problems with Apprenticeship Scheme

- **Most Significant**
  - Amount of time needed to implement and deliver the
  - Bureaucracy / paperwork
- **Least Significant**
  - Difficulty in delivering underpinning knowledge requirements
  - Lack of support from local LSC

#### Characteristics of Apprentices (Proportion of Apprentices)

- **Gender**
  - Male: 52.7%
  - Female: 47.3%
- **Ethnicity**
  - White: 88.7%
  - Minority Ethnic Origins: 11.3%
- **Age Distribution**
  - 16: 39.5%
  - 17: 25.3%
  - 18: 18.0%
  - 19: 7.3%
  - 20+: 9.9%
- **Long-term illness/disability**
  - 2.5% Survey of People Management in Local Government 2005

This is a preliminary report of key findings emerging from the survey, further analyses (based upon the final response) including some additional data areas and further data comparisons will be provided in the full survey report (please see contact names listed at the end of the report). This will include organisational structure; nature of service arrangements; time spent on HR activities; development of people strategy; people management ethos; and e-HR facilities available to staff. All respondents will be provided with full confidential feedback listings in spring 2005.

Findings

Nearly half of councils covered 44.1% of all local authorities in England provided a response to the survey of people management, sent out in January 2005 by the Employers’ Organisation for local government. More detailed breakdowns of response by English region and type of authority are given in Table 1. The response was even across all Comprehensive Performance Assessment categories (poor-excellent), illustrating no imbalance in response toward any particular category.

HR replaces personnel More than half of all authorities (59.4%) call their corporate people management function ‘Human Resources’ and a third use the title ‘Personnel’.

Who is leading on HR? One half (50.3%) of the most senior posts responsible for people management within local authorities report directly to the Chief Executive. A further 45% have one level of seniority between themselves and the Chief Executive. Commonly used titles for this post are ‘Head of Human Resources’ (32.9%), ‘Head of Personnel’ (15.9%) and a variety of titles including ‘Assistant Chief Executive’, ‘Assistant Director, Human Resources’ and broader titles such as ‘Head of Organisational Development’ and ‘Head of People and Performance’.

Around a seventh (14.0%) of respondents reported that people management was not directly represented on their Senior Management Team (SMT). Just under half (46.2%) had people management represented on the SMT by the head of the corporate management function (described above) and just over a third (35.7%) of SMT’s had people management included within another senior manager’s portfolio of responsibility.

1 in 10 councils with no HR member More than two-thirds (71.6%) of respondents have people management represented by one elected member of the council. Just over a tenth (11.8%) have no direct representation of people management on the council and another tenth (10.1%) have people management shared as a responsibility by more than one elected member.

A centralised HR function - the way forward? Three-fifths (62.4%) of respondents deliver people management to the rest of their authority using a centralised model which EO has defined as: ‘the majority of HR activities are undertaken by a central HR team, whilst administrative elements take place within individual business units’.

HR claims strategic partner role In 2003 the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) undertook a survey of corporate HR functions, entitled ‘Where we are, where we’re heading’, with the aim of identifying the ability of HR functions to develop and evolve to meet increasingly strategic business needs. To facilitate comparisons with the CIPD survey results the following question classifies the roles of HR functions into four distinct groups, as identified by Dave Ulrich in his formative book ‘Human Resource Champions’. More than two-thirds (67.5%) of respondents described the main role of the authority’s corporate people management function as ‘Strategic Partner’ (‘A partner with senior and line managers in strategy design and execution facilitating the translation of business strategy into action’). This compares favourably with CIPD’s finding that 33% of their 1,188 respondents considered themselves to be ‘Strategic Partners’ whilst 56% wished to become ‘Strategic Partners’.

Is HR adequately resourced? Grossed figures show that there are a total of 13,669 staff working in the direct provision of people management for 50% or more of their time in local authorities in England. Of these almost half (7,446) are based in corporate departments, and just over and under a seventh each (2,197, 1,944 and 1,740) are specifically based in Education, Social Services and ‘other departments serving the public’ respectively.

Each year the EO conducts the Local Government Employment Survey (LGES) which gathers total workforce figures for all local government. Based upon the LGES June 2004 grossed figures (adjusted to demonstrate full-time equivalence) we have produced Table 2 which shows the ratios of people management staff to all local government staff within each type of local authority.

Overall there are 106 local government employees to every one member of people management staff. This compares favourably with the IRS Employment Review Benchmark 2005 finding of 109 employees to 1 HR officer nationally across sectors. Our findings challenge the IRS’ statement that “Public sector organisations also tend to have relatively large HR departments for the number of staff they oversee”.

Councils lead the way on the development of people strategies Most responding authorities (83.3%) reported that they had a people strategy in place for the whole of the authority. 4.8% had a strategy in place for part of the authority and just over a tenth (11.9%) had no people strategy in place. The IRS found that only 53% of manufacturers and 44% of private services sector companies had HR strategies in place.

Councils report use of people measures Almost all (91.8%) authorities were using ‘hard’ (quantifiable and process) methods to evaluate people management regarding sickness absence. The other areas of people management commonly evaluated using ‘hard’ measures included: recruitment & retention (by four-fifths); training and development of managers (by just under two-thirds) and training and development of non-managers (also by just under two-thirds). Whilst ‘soft’ evaluation measures were often used in addition to ‘hard’ evaluation methods most commonly ‘soft’ evaluation measures were used for work-life balance issues (by more than two-thirds, 69.6% of respondents).

eHR strong in traditional people management jobs Most of the authorities who responded to the survey (88% and 81.9% respectively) reported that they used electronic HR (eHR) systems in order to provide payroll and absence management services to the whole or part of the authority. Just over two-thirds (71.7%) were using eHR for recruitment and retention and half were using eHR to provide skills and development services. Around two-fifths of respondents were using eHR for other activities including: reward/pay management; performance management/appraisal; health and safety; workforce planning and equality and diversity. For further information please contact: Tracey Connage at the Employers’ Organisation, Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG, Tel: 020 7296 6198; or Email: tracey.connage@lg-employers.gov.uk Or Ben Hickman at the Employers’ Organisation, Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG,, Tel: 020 7296 6171; or Email: ben.hickman@lg-employers.gov.uk Or Kate Crofts at the Employers’ Organisation, Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG,, Tel: 020 7296 6642; or Email: kate.crofts@lg-employers.gov.uk

Table 1 - Response rates by region and type of authority

| English Region | No. of returns received | Response rate | Type of Authority | No. of returns received | Response rate | |----------------------|-------------------------|---------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|---------------| | East Midlands | 27 | 60.0% | Shire districts | 97 | 40.8% | | East of England | 26 | 48.1% | Metropolitan districts | 11 | 30.6% | | London | 16 | 48.5% | Shire counties | 19 | 55.9% | | North East | 6 | 24.0% | England unitaries | 25 | 53.2% | | North West | 18 | 39.1% | London boroughs | 16 | 48.5% | | South East | 28 | 37.8% | Anonymous | 3 | | | South West | 21 | 41.2% | | | | | West Midlands | 14 | 36.8% | | | | | Yorkshire and Humberside | 12 | 54.5% | | | | | All LAs in England | 171 | 44.1% | | | |

Table 2 - Ratio of People Management staff to local government employees (PM staff : LG staff)

| Type of Authority | Total (grossed FTE) PM staff | Total (grossed FTE) LG staff | Ratio of PM staff to LG staff | |-------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------------| | Shire Districts | 1,607 | 119,939 | 1:61 | | Metropolitan Districts | 3,074 | 411,932 | 1:130 | | Shire Counties | 4,115 | 537,607 | 1:135 | | England Unitaries | 2,247 | 285,010 | 1:107 | | London Boroughs | 1,959 | 198,522 | 1:95 | | All LAs in England | 13,669\* | 1,553,009 | 1:106 |

\*Total grossed FTE is greater than sum of departments as more information was available regarding total PM staff.

### Survey of people management in local government 2005 preliminary key facts – England

BASE for percentages (all respondents) = 157 authorities in England (40%). PM = people management LA = local authority

| Title of corporate PM function | | |-------------------------------|---| | Human resources | 59.4 | | Personnel | 31.2 | | Other | 7.6 | | People management | 1.2 | | No corporate/central people management | 0.6 |

| Title of head of PM | | |---------------------|---| | Head of human resources | 32.9 | | Other (inc. Asst. Chief Executive & Asst. Director) | 31.8 | | Head of personnel | 15.9 | | Human resources manager | 6.5 | | Personnel manager | 4.7 | | Director of human resources | 2.9 | | Chief human resources officer | 1.8 | | Chief personnel officer | 2.9 | | Director of personnel | 0.6 |

| Representation of PM on senior mgt. team | | |------------------------------------------|---| | by head of PM | 46.2 | | within other senior manager’s portfolio of responsibility | 35.7 | | not directly represented | 14.0 | | other | 4.1 |

| Representation of people management by elected members | | |--------------------------------------------------------|---| | within one member’s portfolio of responsibility | 71.6 | | not directly represented | 11.8 | | within more than one member’s portfolio of responsibility | 10.1 | | other | 6.5 |

| Model of delivery of PM | | |-------------------------|---| | centralised | 62.4 | | decentralised | 12.9 | | account management | 1.2 | | shared service | 10.0 | | outsourced | 0.6 | | integrated | 1.7 | | other model of PM service delivery | 11.2 |

| Role of the PM function (using Ulrich’s descriptors) | | |------------------------------------------------------|---| | strategic partner | 67.5 | | administrative expert | 9.2 | | employee champion | 4.9 | | change agent | 18.4 |

### Survey of people management in local government 2005 preliminary key facts – England

BASE for percentages (all respondents) = 157 authorities in England (40%).

PM = people management LA = local authority

#### PM staff numbers

| Description | Number | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------| | Total (grossed FTE) PM staff in local govt. in England | 13,669 | | Total (grossed FTE) PM staff in corporate departments | 7,446 | | Total (grossed FTE) PM staff in other departments | 1,740 | | Total (grossed FTE) PM staff in education (schools = 1,591 + non-schools = 606) | 2197 | | Total (grossed FTE) PM staff in social services | 1,944 | | Mean ratio of local govt. staff (FTE) to PM staff | 1:106 |

#### People strategy

| Description | Percentage | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | People strategy in place for whole authority | 83.3 | | People strategy in place for part of authority | 4.8 | | No people strategy in place | 11.9 |

#### LAs using “hard” (quantifiable and process) methods to evaluate PM regarding:

| Description | Percentage | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | Sickness absence management | 91.8 | | Improved recruitment & retention policies | 80.1 | | Training & development of managers | 62.0 | | Training & development of non-managers | 60.8 | | Improving internal communications | 40.9 | | Development of top leadership | 36.8 | | Work-life balance issues | 31.6 | | Team-based working | 14.0 |

#### LAs using “soft” (qualitative) methods to evaluate PM regarding:

| Description | Percentage | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | Work-life balance issues | 69.6 | | Training & development of managers | 67.8 | | Development of top leadership | 64.9 | | Improving internal communications | 61.4 | | Training & development of non-managers | 55.6 | | Improved recruitment & retention policies | 35.7 | | Team-based working | 33.9 | | Sickness absence management | 18.1 |

#### Whole or part of LAs using eHR to conduct:

| Description | Percentage | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | Payroll | 88.0 | | Absence management | 81.9 | | Recruitment and retention | 71.7 | | Skills and development | 51.2 | | Performance management / appraisal | 47.0 | | Reward/pay management (inc. job evaluation/grading) | 46.4 | | Health and safety | 41.6 | | Equality and diversity | 42.2 | | Workforce planning | 40.4 | | Other | 2.4 | **Hours and Holiday 2005**

This article looks at the key findings from the IDS Study 784 on Hours and Holidays and the IRS Employment Review 817, which also features data on holidays. IDS report the average full time working week is 37.2 hours and the average basic annual leave entitlement is 24.6 days whilst the IRS report that basic leave entitlement is 24.7 days.

**Findings from IDS – A survey of 484 organisations**

**Basic Working Hours** Table 1 based on an analysis published by IDS shows that there are still large differences in the number of working hours between manual and non-manual workers. Manual employees still tend to be more likely to work weeks in excess of 37 hrs per week than non-manual workers.

45% of manual workers have a basic working week of 39 hours or more (compared with 11% of those in non-manual agreements). Conversely, 40% of those in non-manual agreements have a basic week of 36 hours or under (against 10% of manuals).

There is also a difference in the number of hours worked in different sectors. The lowest average basic weekly working hours are 35.2, found for those working in the finance sector, a mainly non-manual sector. The longest weekly working hours were recorded in agriculture and forestry (38.8), mining and quarrying and textiles (38.7) and clothing and footwear (38.4).

IDS report that there has been an ongoing move to harmonise manual and non-manual working conditions, including the number of working hours. Two-thirds of harmonised agreements have a basic working week of 37 to 37.75 hours.

**Hours in the public sector**

**Local Government** According to IDS from the 1st of April 2004, local government staff in London previously on the manual workers grading structure saw the introduction of a standard 36-hour week under the terms of the single status agreement of 1997. When this has been rolled out to all authorities, greater harmonisation in hours worked is likely to occur.

**Teachers** From September 2004 teachers in England will be limited in the number of hours that they can be required to cover for an absent colleague. This is in addition to a new workload agreement which, according to IDS is designed to free teachers from some administrative tasks.

**NHS** The standard weekly hours for all full time NHS staff will be 37.5 hours (excluding meal breaks) under the Agenda for Change agreement.

**Civil Service** Harmonisation of working hours is also occurring in the Civil Service with many agencies having achieved 30 days leave as standard, irrespective of grade.

**Holiday entitlement** Unlike weekly working hours, the difference between manual and non-manual holiday entitlement is very small. Table 2 shows that the most common number of annual leave entitlement for organisations included in the IDS database is 25 days. The average number holidays overall is 24.6 days, and the average number of holidays for manual and non-manual workers is 23.9 days and 24.7 days respectively.

The lowest number of holiday entitlement days is 21.6 days in hotels and leisure; this is followed by 22.9 days in construction and retail. For many organisations the basic holiday entitlement is boosted by service related leave. IDS reveal that the highest number of average holiday entitlement days is in the mining and quarrying sector at 26.5 days, followed by 26.1 days in the energy and water sector.

Interestingly, the IDS survey mentions that almost 6% of the organisations have a form of buying and selling holiday. This is usually part of a wider flexible benefits scheme.

**Findings from IRS Employment Review 817 – A survey of 161 organisations**

**Similarities** The IRS survey on annual leave reports back many similar findings to the IDS survey with little variation in the levels of holiday offered over the last year and an average entitlement of 24.7 days, compared to 24.6 days in the IDS survey. In addition, the IRS report that differences in holiday entitlements between manual and non-manual workers have largely disappeared. Most notable in this respect is Local Government where the Single Status agreement appears to have “all but wiped out the gap”.

**Comparisons with other countries** The IRS state that whilst levels of holiday in the UK are far above those offered in the US (that has an average of 9.8 days) they are still below those offered in much of Western Europe. Workers in the Netherlands have an average of 31.4 days, Germany an average of 29.2 and Italy an average of 28.

**Additional leave** One trend that the survey reveals is that offering additional days leave is becoming less popular. 18 months ago the survey showed that 66% of participants offered this whilst the most recent survey shows this has dropped to 61%. It’s unclear if this is a result of harmonisation or another trend.

**Union membership** The IRS also show that leave entitlement tends to be higher amongst those organisations that have union membership (26.1 days) compared to non-union organisations (22.7 days). Unions tend to be more prevalent in larger public sector organisations where leave levels are often historically higher than the private sector but it seems possible that union membership has had a positive impact on increasing holiday entitlement.

**Levels of holiday by size of organisation and sector** Table 3 shows that organisational size across industry appears to have little or no impact on levels of holiday entitlement. The largest variance is for organisations that have 1-249 employees and those that have 1000+ employees. Here the level of holiday entitlement is 24 and 25 days respectively (at both the mean and median). Larger organisations may tend to offer a very marginal increase in holiday levels.

Much greater variances are found by sector. The largest difference is for the public sector and private services where the level of holiday entitlement is 27.1 and 22.7 days respectively (at the mean). The public sector and private manufacturing sector also have a much wider variance of holiday on offer (between 18.4 and 46.3 and 18.2 and 45.8 respectively) than in the private services sector (between 17.4 and 28). Despite these differences, median leave entitlement is between 22.8 and 25 days for all types of sector.

Roopal Shah/Nick Shasha

### Table 1

Range of basic weekly working hours

| Basic hours | Manual | Non-manual | Harmonised\* | |-------------|--------|------------|-------------| | Under 35 | 1.1% | 0.3% | - | | 35 | 5.6% | 27.4% | 8.5% | | 35.25 – 35.75 | 0.4% | 0.3% | 2.6% | | 36 | 3.3% | 11.9% | 3.9% | | 36.25 – 36.75 | 4.1% | 6.3% | 1.3% | | 37 | 14.1% | 19.0% | 39.2% | | 37.25 – 37.75 | 13.3% | 20.2% | 26.8% | | 38 | 10.7% | 3.0% | 2.6% | | 38.25 – 38.75 | 1.9% | 0.9% | 1.3% | | 39 – 39.75 | 31.1% | 6.8% | 11.1% | | 40 | 11.5% | 3.3% | 2.0% | | Over 40 | 3.0% | 0.6% | 0.7% |

\*Where all employees have the same basic hours

Source: IDS hours and holidays database

### Table 2

Range of basic holiday entitlement

| Basic holiday | Manual | Non-manual | Harmonised\* | |---------------|--------|------------|-------------| | 20/20.5 | 5.9% | 8.3% | 3.1% | | 21 | 10.4% | 6.8% | 1.3% | | 22/22.5 | 12.2% | 13.7% | 3.1% | | 23 | 6.3% | 6.8% | 3.8% | | 24/24.5 | 7.2% | 6.3% | 5.0% | | 25/25.5 | 41.6% | 39.6% | 60.6% | | 26 | 11.8% | 10.4% | 10.0% | | 27/27.5 | 1.4% | 3.6% | 5.0% | | 28 | 2.3% | 1.8% | 5.6% | | 29 | 0.5% | 0.9% | - | | 30 | 0.5% | 1.2% | 2.5% | | Over 30 | - | 0.6% | - |

\*Where all employees have the same basic hours

Source: IDS hours and holiday database

### Table 3

Weighted average of basic holiday allowance across all groups – by organisation size

| No. of employees | No. of organisations | No. of days | |------------------|----------------------|-------------| | | | Mean | Median | Minimum | Maximum | | 1-249 employees | 65 | 24.0 | 24.0 | 17.4 | 46.3 | | 250-999 employees| 48 | 24.2 | 24.5 | 18.2 | 36.0 | | 1000+ employees | 32 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 20.0 | 45.8 | | Total | 145 | 24.3 | 24.5 | 17.4 | 46.3 |

Source: IRS Employment Review 817 Table 4

Weighted average of basic holiday allowance across all groups – by broad sector

| Broad sector | No. of organisations | No. of days | Mean | Median | Minimum | Maximum | |------------------|----------------------|-------------|------|--------|---------|---------| | Public sector | 32 | | 27.1 | 25.0 | 18.4 | 46.3 | | Private manuf. | 54 | | 24.4 | 25.0 | 18.2 | 45.8 | | Private services | 58 | | 22.7 | 22.8 | 17.4 | 28.0 | | Total | 144 | | 24.3 | 24.7 | 17.4 | 46.3 |

Source: IRS Employment Review 817

A complete report of the IDS Hours and Holidays 2004, IDS HR Studies 784, can be obtained by contacting IDS Customer services on 020 7324 2599, 77 Bastwick Street, London, EC1V 3TT, or visiting their website: www.incomesdata.co.uk.

IRS Employment Review 817 can be obtained through IRS, 2 Addiscombe Road, Croydon, Surrey, CR9 5AF. Customer Services: 020 8662 2000. Website: www.irsemploymentreview.com

For more information about this article please contact Roopal Shah on 020 7296 6510 or via e-mail at roopal.shah@lg-employers.gov.uk or Nick Shasha on 020 7296 6765 or via e-mail at nick.shasha@lg-employers.gov.uk Press Summary

This section in the Digest aims to provide an overview of recent stories that have featured in the national press that are likely to have a direct impact upon local government.

Poor careers advice hits women in pay packet. By Jonathan Moules, The Financial Times, 3rd February 2005, Pg 6.

A variety of Gender bias and equality within employment has been uncovered by The Equal Opportunities commission (EOC) who have said that male part-time workers have earned 40 percent more then their female counterparts over the past 30 years.

Caroline Slocock, the commission’s chief executive told delegates from the Dept of Trade and Industry that gender bias starts off early in a woman’s career, through lack of sufficient information when they originally choose their career path.

Lack of flexible working arrangements in traditionally male-orientated jobs such as engineering, plumbing and construction have hindered woman’s progression, she added. And an EOC survey of 1000 Women showed two-thirds would have re-considered their career path if they had been given the right information earlier.

Ms Slocock said that with the oversupply of females taking part time work to fit around their childcare responsibilities, wages were subsequently being lowered. Jonathan Moules points to the Netherlands, as an example of a country with more enlightened attitudes to women in work. Companies assess the separation of part-time and full-time work less critically, and the Government has a more profound support for women with childcare responsibility.

Glenda Stone, Chief Executive of Aurora, a women’s networking business argues that due to a lack of flexible working opportunities within many companies, part-time working is the only option for women who are raising children. She pointed to companies in the financial sector, including the nationwide building society, who are offering increased flexible working arrangements for women with childcare responsibilities.

35 – hour week under threat By Jon Henley, The Guardian, 1st February 2005, P13.

The 1998 law passed under the then Socialist Government in France, reducing working hours to 35 hours per week, is under threat of being dismantled this week by the current French Government. Under new proposals, workers will be allowed to work up to 48 hours per week. The Labour Relations minister, Gerard Larcher insisted the new proposals offered more freedoms for workers who want to work more hours, not an eradication of the previous law altogether.

A CGT spokesman, Bernard Thibault argues however that it is an illusion to think employees will be able to choose their hours as they wish, stating all the power will be transferred to the employer if the new proposals become part of the statute.

Jon Henley illustrates a conflict of interest within the French workforce, using two recent polls on the new proposed law. One shows 77% want to maintain the 35-hour week, but another shows 52% of white-collar employees and 1in3 blue-collar workers would like the option of working longer hours. One of the motives behind the new proposals, as highlighted by Jon Henley, may be the increased waiting lists within France’s public sector, and the constraints put on businesses unable to increase their productivity.

Chris McShee Budget 2005: The implications for the labour market and local government

In the last budget before the general election, Gordon Brown delivered what many would describe as a fiscally balanced Budget. Bringing corporation tax payments forward and clamping down on tax avoidance will fund £2bn worth of tax cuts. Whilst there were no great giveaways, there was financial help for pensioners and a range of other initiatives designed to enhance the skills of the younger members of the labour market. The article finishes with an analysis of the Hampton review and considers it’s potential upon local government.

Introduction Most of the main proposals in this Budget appear to have little direct impact upon local government or the labour force. However, a closer look at the detail reveals that subtle changes to the labour market are likely to occur and that the thrust of modernisation and efficiency drives espoused in the last Budget are to continue. Moreover, the provisions for pensioners and increases in childcare payments could encourage these groups to participate more actively in the labour market.

Pensioners Although the state pension has only been raised by the rate of inflation, pensioners benefit from a one-off £200 council tax refund, extension of free bus travel, increases to the pension credit system and the abolishing of hotel charges by the NHS. The council tax refund is a one-off whilst the effectiveness of the pension credit increases will depend on them being properly promoted and efficiently administered, criticisms which are currently levied at the system. Perhaps of most value to pensioners is the extension of free bus travel that will benefit those in England (Wales and Scotland already offer free bus travel). Free travel for pensioners could encourage them back into the labour market especially into part-time work as commuting costs may have taken a significant chunk out of their part-time earnings. It could be an effective way of mobilising this part of the labour market. Although there are restrictions on peak-time travel, the fact that pensioners may seek a return to part-time work could mean they have more flexibility to work non-peak hours.

Education/Apprenticeships At the other end of the age range, measures were introduced to improve skill levels and training. A £9.4bn re-building programme is to develop primary schools and enable them to open from 8am to 6pm. The chancellor also said it was the government’s aim that all children start their education in an early years setting at the age of three. This could have implications for the supply of teaching staff and support staff depending on how these measures are developed. A greater supply of part-time workers may be required to allow an expansion in the opening hours of schools.

The increased funding and incentives to stay in education for those aged over 16 are likely to have a more immediate impact upon the labour market. One pilot scheme will offer financial support to 16 and 17 year olds who are not in education, training or employment in return for a commitment to move towards formal learning. Another will be a “learning agreement” for all 16 and 17 year olds in work with no training, developing the statutory right to time off to study or train. Both of these policies may take some young people out of the labour market but with the aim that skill levels are improved. To back these initiatives, there will also be an increase in the number of apprenticeship schemes on offer to 300,000 by 2008. Low income families and childcare

A greater impact on the labour market is likely to come through the extension to childcare payments through the tax credit system that was announced in the pre-budget report in November. From April, the cost of childcare eligible for payments rises from £135 to £175 for a family with one child and from £200 to £300 for a family with two. This should lead to a greater use of childcare facilities enabling more parents to participate more actively in the labour market. Moreover, from 2006, the ceiling on household earnings for those receiving this allowance rises from £42,000 to £59,000.

Low-income families are to receive up to £1bn over the next three years. These groups will receive extra money through the tax credit system providing their incomes are less than £22,000. By making childcare more affordable this could increase labour market participation.

Lone parents are also likely to find it easier to re-enter the labour market as a pilot scheme that boosts their salaries by as much as £40 a week (to a maximum of £2,000) is to be expanded beyond its current usage in London, Bradford and Edinburgh. The scheme relates to their first year of work.

Relocation of Civil service jobs A more measurable impact on local labour markets is likely to come from the fact that even more Civil service jobs are to be moved from London. DEFRA will be moving 300 staff from London to Yorkshire; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will move 600 posts to Birmingham and Newcastle and the Foreign Office is also to shift 450 jobs to Milton Keynes. These moves may be good news for the economic vitality of the areas concerned, but could add pressure in local labour markets for administrative staff in particular.

Stamp Duty and Taxation Unlikely to have any impact on London and the South-East, the doubling of the Stamp Duty exemption may go some way to reinvigorating the housing market in the North of England and will free up to 300,000 homebuyers from the duty each year.

Regulatory services – perspective from the Hampton Review In a move to create a more open, transparent and robust regulatory system and develop a streamlined approach to regulation inspection activity, over the next four years, the government (after considering the Hampton Review) will seek to merge 31 national regulators into seven (thematic) bodies, establishing a joined up approach to the delivery of regulatory services in the public sector.

Single agency “strategic” approach Amongst these, a single consumer and trading standards agency is proposed, incorporating the work of four existing regulators and co-ordinating the work on consumer protection and trading standards on a national stage. This body would have lead policy responsibility for TS nationally and help LAs co-ordinate their regulatory services and drive through a risk based approach to inspection activity.

Partnership approach The review also endorsed a suggestion put forward by The Local Government Association, for the creation of a national group which would complement the work of the agency by sharing burdens and coordinate work on local regulation. Made up of various national bodies, the proposed National Regulatory Forum main remit would be to: • improve the coordination of local and national regulatory services; • secure agreement on common services, or central communication strategies, to be provided centrally or regionally; and • agree risk assessment arrangements, and monitor the extent to which local authority regulators apply them

Impact upon LA regulatory services Although at this stage it cannot be stated for certain how the recommendations from the review (if followed through) will impact upon EH and TS staff, the review does concede that the merger (as outlined above) will affect a "significant number of local authority staff". In addition, it is likely that the move towards and focus on advice/business compliance (as a result of more effective inspection arrangements and freeing up of resources) may require a shift to new working practices and re-skilling in some areas of regulatory work.

Nick Shasha Pay Trends

According to Incomes Data Services (IDS) their initial estimate for the median settlement for the three months to January 2005 of 3.2% has nudged up to 3.3%. The TUC report that in 2004 UK employees did unpaid overtime worth £23bn. Personneltoday report that according to Lloyds TSB’s Business in Britain survey, skills shortages in the UK are at a 12-year peak.

Settlement levels IDS report that for the three months to January 2005 the pay settlement level is 3.3% This is based on 108 settlements. According to IRS pay settlements in the private sector are also at 3.3%, for the three months to the end of January. Pay settlements in the public sector however remain stable at 3%.

In the public sector pay reviews for doctors, teachers, prison officers and the armed forces, are set to be between 2.5% and 3% from April 2005. As part of the second stage in a three year deal local government employees are due to receive a 2.95% rise in April.

For the three months to the end of February the median pay settlement in manufacturing was 2.7%, according to manufacturing and engineering organisation, EEF. This is based on settlements for over 350 manufacturers.

Unpaid overtime worth £4,650 According to research carried out by the Trade Union Congress (TUC), in 2004 employers saved themselves £23 billion through employees working extra hours with no pay.

Employees in London put in the longest hours. They put in an extra 7 hours and 54 minutes each week, which is just under an extra 8 hour day. The TUC claims that if employees in London were paid for these extra hours they would have earned an extra £7,008 a year. Employees in Wales worked an average of 7 hours and 42 minutes of unpaid overtime per week in 2004, worth £4,320. Employees in the South West worked the least number of average unpaid overtime hours per week at 6 hours 30 minutes, worth, £3,768.

Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary said, “We’re not saying that we should turn into a nation of clock-watchers. Most people do not mind putting in some extra time when there’s a crisis or an expected rush. But too many workplaces have come to depend on very long hours. They get taken for granted and staff have to do even more if there is an unexpected rush.

“Worst of all is that many long hour workplaces are inefficient and unproductive. People are putting in the long hours to make up for poor organisation and planning in the workplace.”

Skills shortages IRS report findings from a salary survey carried out by recruitment group Angela Mortimer. They report that the demand for staff is at its highest in 4 years, but that salaries have not matched this.

The reports key findings show that the salaries for employees working in London are significantly higher compared to those working in the Midlands. For example, a team secretary working in the commerce and industry sector in London can expect a salary between £23,000 and £27,000 pa, whilst the same role in the Midlands might only expect between £13,000 and £16,000.

The report also shows that whilst there is a great demand for HR generalists, those available for work at a junior level often lack experience.

Business in Britain Survey Personneltoday.com also reveal similar skills shortages from the Business in Britain survey. 52% of British companies have over the past 12 months faced difficulties in recruiting skilled staff. 62% of companies in the East Midlands are experiencing a shortage of candidates with skills for jobs and 28% of businesses have reported problems finding unskilled staff.

Women value training opportunities over salary Results from a survey carried out by career advice firm Hobsons show that 21% of women said lack of training was the reason they moved to their next job. Only 3% of men said this was the reason they moved jobs.

The survey revealed that men were more salary focused, and felt moving on to a job with a higher salary was the most effective form of moving up the career ladder.

Roopal Shah

Full details of Pay settlements and IDS pay databank can be found in IDS Pay Report 924, 77 Bastwick Street, London, EC1V 3TT, Tel: 020 7250 3434, website www.incomesdata.co.uk

IRS Employment Review 819 features the latest data on pay settlements, for a complete report on skills shorts and unpaid overtime please visit, www.irsonline.co.uk. IRS, 2 Addiscombe Road, Croydon, Surrey, CR9 5AF. Tel: 020 8686 9141.

For the complete articles on skills shortages and women value training opportunities over salary please visit www.personneltoday.com

Full details of unpaid overtime and a regional breakdown can be found at www.tuc.org.uk Average Earnings Index

The headline rate of average earnings growth has increased to 4.4% in January. The rates of earnings growth in the private and public sectors were 4.4% and 4.6% respectively. Earnings growth in the services has decreased to 4.4% and decreased to 3.2% in the manufacturing sector.

Wages and salaries per unit output in the whole economy for the third quarter of 2004 showed a 1.0% increase on the same quarter a year ago. In manufacturing, wages and salaries per unit output have decreased by 1.2% over the last year.

Table 2.2.1: Average Earnings Index: Percentage change over previous 12 months

| Year | Month | Whole economy | Private sector | Public sector | |------|-------|---------------|----------------|---------------| | 2004 | Mar | 115.3 | 114.7 | 118.3 | | | Apr | 115.6 | 115.0 | 118.5 | | | May | 115.8 | 115.1 | 119.0 | | | June | 116.1 | 115.3 | 119.8 | | | July | 116.3 | 115.5 | 119.9 | | | Aug | 116.9 | 116.0 | 120.7 | | | Sep | 117.3 | 116.3 | 121.2 | | | Oct | 117.8 | 117.0 | 121.6 | | | Nov | 118.9 | 118.1 | 121.9 | | | Dec | 118.6 | 117.7 | 122.2 | | 2005 | Jan | 122.8 | 122.9 | 122.7 |

\*Base Rate- 2000=100 † The headline rate is the average of annual change in the seasonally adjusted series over the last 3 months

Ten independent forecasts for whole economy average earnings for the first quarter of 2005 range between 3.6% and 5.0%, and have a mean of 4.3%.

Table 2.2.2: Average Earnings Index forecasts

| Year | 2005 Qtr 1 | 2005 Qtr 2 | 2005 Qtr 3 | 2005 Qtr 4 | |------|------------|------------|------------|------------| | Upper range | 5.0% | 4.9% | 4.9% | 4.8% | | Mean | 4.3% | 4.5% | 4.5% | 4.5% | | Lower range | 3.6% | 4.0% | 4.1% | 4.2% |

Source: Industrial Relations Services

## Recent Pay Settlements

| Group | Progress | Effective Date | Changes to conditions of service | |------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------------------------| | **Public sector** | | | | | Rother District Council| 3% increase | 01.09.04 | | | **Private sector** | | | | | Kodak | 2.5% rise for 1,600 production, clerical, technical and secretarial staff. | 01.01.05 | | | Alcan Primary Metal-Europe | 3% rise, the 2nd year of a 3-year pay deal for all employees. | 01.01.05 | | | LG Philips Displays | 3.4% rise for manuals and staff at Durham (720), a 5.4% rise for production supervisors. | 01.01.05 | | Market Pay Service – Extract 5

Over the last year, we have been processing salary data from the LG Jobs & jobsgopublic websites in order to create a database on a range of key jobs. It is hoped that this will assist authorities by providing a reliable and timely source of compensation data for a number of core roles across the broad range of jobs that authorities offer. From Extract 4 onwards, we have also included data from the Sector1 website which can be accessed at www.sector1.net. This will enhance our coverage of roles in the North-East.

Defining the jobs There are hundreds of different occupations within local government. We decided to concentrate on a selection of around 50, covering managerial, professional, administrative and manual roles. Many of these are jobs for which we frequently receive requests for pay data.

The source which we use provides data on around 10,000 different jobs every quarter. This is a substantial sample, but two limitations of the data should be emphasised. The first is that the jobs can only be grouped according to title. We all know that this can sometimes be misleading: What one council calls an “administration officer” may be doing a different job to someone with the same title in another authority. Similarly, different councils use different titles for what is essentially the same job. To help address these problems we have reviewed the jobs carefully discarding those which look clearly out of line with others of the same title. Then we have grouped jobs with similar titles where pay levels are also similar.

For instance, for the Health & Safety group of jobs we combined the following roles; Health & Safety Adviser, Health & Safety Officers and Health & Safety Managers. Similar breakdowns were made where applicable for all the other roles covered by the survey and a complete copy of all roles included, (by any group) can be obtained by calling Nick Shasha on 020 7296 6765. We can provide you with data for specific job titles within the broader group. We always use medians rather than means as a measure of average to minimise the effects of more extreme values.

The second problem is that some regions, notably the North East and Wales, are poorly represented within the dataset. We are considering drawing in data from other sources to help remedy this.

Sample sizes: In order to ensure that the data are as accurate as they can be, only jobs or groups showing 20 or more responses have been fully included in the analysis.

Regional analysis: We have collected data from all the 10 standard regions. Where sample sizes are reliable this should indicate any regional differences and which local authorities may need to consider when researching market rates of pay.

Two new services: In addition to publishing quarterly data in the Digest, we will also be offering local authorities the opportunity to call a member of the Pay research team to find out in more detail about the data behind the Market Pay Service. Where possible, we will give more detail about the composition of any regional data and provide an analysis of the data, taking seniority of the role into account.

The data we collect is filtered using the terms trainee, junior, deputy or assistant to identify junior roles and supervisor, senior or principal for senior roles. In order to check if there is sufficient data to analyse by seniority, please call Nick Shasha on 020 7296 6765. It should be noted however that in many cases, sample sizes will become less reliable if the seniority analysis is used. Caution: Caution should be used when interpreting the results from the Market Pay Survey as there are a number of factors that may ultimately affect the rates of pay shown in the tables in Section 2 of the Digest. These are:

- Size of sample
- The location of jobs (we know that labour market pressures vary within as well as between regions)
- Seniority analysis is not given in the Digest data

On that last point, authorities should be aware that the data given in the Digest isn’t broken down by levels of seniority and represents all the data for junior, standard and senior roles combined. In some cases where the group is large enough we do print separate data – for example for accounting assistants. In other instances, (for example planning officers and information officers) the data relate only to those described as “officers”. However, the data should be viewed as a useful indicator of current market rates for specific groups of jobs. We are happy to answer enquiries for more precise data for specific job levels.

Updating of new data: The data from LG Jobs is updated on a quarterly basis and the next batch of data will therefore be published in the November copy of the Digest.

Other EO data: The EO also collects data for some of the job groups listed here through it’s own surveys. We have recently covered a number of the social care and public protection jobs, for example. Where we have another source which will help answer a particular enquiry we will of course use it.

Definitions: Group: This refers to which group of jobs the data relates to – please see table below for group title. Region: EE = East of England, EM = East Midlands, L = London, NE = North East, NW = North West, SE = South East, SW = South West, W = Wales, WM = West Midlands, YH = Yorkshire & Humberside Median Min: This is the median minimum salary from the given sample. The median is used instead of the mean as it gives us a more reliable indicator of what the typical salary for a given role is. It is calculated by distributing all the salaries from lowest to highest and choosing the salary that sits in the middle of this range. Median Max: This is the median maximum salary from the given sample. Count: This is the number of individuals that were matched to this role. A minimum of 20 is required in order to produce an analysis. Groups covered (jobs in Italics aren’t covered by this Extract)

| Group | Region | Median Min | Median Max | Count | Group | Region | Median Min | Median Max | Count | |-------|--------|------------|------------|-------|-------|--------|------------|------------|-------| | 1 | All | 27,600 | 31,800 | 273 | 4 | All | 14,800 | 16,600 | 620 | | 1 | EM | 24,700 | 29,100 | 26 | 4 | EM | 14,000 | 16,500 | 45 | | 1 | L | 33,600 | 37,100 | 83 | 4 | L | 19,800 | 21,400 | 151 | | 1 | SE | 28,500 | 32,900 | 33 | 4 | NE | 14,000 | 14,900 | 26 | | 1 | WM | 25,200 | 29,800 | 21 | 4 | NW | 13,800 | 14,800 | 29 | | 1 | Y&H | 23,400 | 27,400 | 21 | 4 | SE | 14,600 | 17,100 | 123 | | 2 | All | 14,800 | 18,600 | 129 | 4 | SW | 13,700 | 15,400 | 25 | | 2 | WM | 14,800 | 18,600 | 24 | 4 | WM | 14,800 | 16,500 | 41 | | 2 | Y&H | 13,600 | 17,000 | 29 | 4 | Y&H | 14,800 | 16,500 | 124 | | 3 | All | 13,600 | 14,900 | 2743 | 5 | All | 12,700 | 13,700 | 161 | | 3 | EE | 13,200 | 14,500 | 169 | 5 | NE | 12,700 | 13,300 | 26 | | 3 | EM | 13,600 | 14,500 | 427 | 5 | SW | 11,000 | 13,100 | 22 | | 3 | L | 17,200 | 19,400 | 318 | 5 | Y&H | 10,600 | 14,500 | 43 | | 3 | NE | 13,100 | 14,500 | 135 | 6 | All | 12,700 | 13,400 | 318 | | 3 | NW | 12,700 | 14,500 | 65 | 6 | EM | 10,300 | 13,300 | 74 | | 3 | SE | 14,000 | 15,600 | 621 | 6 | NE | 12,700 | 13,700 | 25 | | 3 | SW | 13,600 | 14,500 | 150 | 6 | WM | 12,700 | 13,400 | 118 | | 3 | W | 14,000 | 16,500 | 69 | 6 | Y&H | 11,600 | 13,300 | 58 | | 3 | WM | 13,600 | 16,500 | 175 | 7 | All | 24,000 | 29,800 | 158 | | 3 | Y&H | 13,100 | 14,500 | 457 | 7 | L | 27,500 | 33,100 | 34 | | Group | Region | Median Min | Median Max | Count | Group | Region | Median Min | Median Max | Count | |-------|--------|------------|------------|-------|-------|--------|------------|------------|-------| | 7 | SE | 25,200 | 30,600 | 25 | 15 | Y&H | 11,000 | 11,300 | 113 | | 8 | All | 22,700 | 28,000 | 262 | 16 | All | 5.45 | 5.47 | 1117 | | 8 | EE | 22,700 | 27,800 | 38 | 16 | EE | 5.47 | 5.47 | 42 | | 8 | L | 30,300 | 35,600 | 34 | 16 | EM | 5.33 | 5.33 | 277 | | 8 | NE | 21,900 | 26,600 | 23 | 16 | L | 6.68 | 6.81 | 53 | | 8 | NW | 20,500 | 26,600 | 21 | 16 | NE | 5.47 | 5.47 | 39 | | 8 | SE | 22,000 | 30,000 | 66 | 16 | NW | 5.47 | 5.47 | 52 | | 8 | SW | 22,000 | 26,600 | 22 | 16 | SE | 5.78 | 6.21 | 78 | | 8 | Y&H | 18,300 | 24,700 | 25 | 16 | SW | 5.34 | 5.47 | 30 | | 9 | All | 14,000 | 16,500 | 83 | 16 | W | 5.33 | 5.33 | 24 | | 9 | SE | 14,600 | 17,400 | 33 | 16 | WM | 5.58 | 5.62 | 63 | | 10 | All | 21,000 | 27,600 | 319 | 16 | Y&H | 5.33 | 5.34 | 458 | | 10 | EM | 19,800 | 27,400 | 58 | 17 | All | 12,700 | 13,400 | 873 | | 10 | L | 23,700 | 29,800 | 55 | 17 | EE | 10,600 | 13,300 | 62 | | 10 | SE | 21,300 | 28,100 | 125 | 17 | EM | 10,700 | 13,300 | 112 | | 10 | SW | 20,500 | 25,900 | 24 | 17 | L | 14,200 | 15,200 | 22 | | 10 | Y&H | 25,900 | 28,300 | 27 | 17 | NE | 12,700 | 13,700 | 63 | | 11 | All | 5.86 | 5.90 | 1404 | 17 | NW | 10,600 | 13,600 | 27 | | 11 | EE | 5.87 | 5.87 | 47 | 17 | SE | 13,100 | 14,500 | 113 | | 11 | EM | 5.70 | 6.19 | 274 | 17 | W | 12,700 | 13,300 | 73 | | 11 | L | 7.67 | 8.07 | 38 | 17 | WM | 12,700 | 13,700 | 133 | | 11 | NE | 5.89 | 5.89 | 113 | 17 | Y&H | 10,600 | 13,300 | 248 | | 11 | SE | 6.59 | 7.38 | 129 | 18 | All | 12,700 | 13,700 | 364 | | 11 | SW | 6.61 | 7.18 | 43 | 18 | EM | 12,700 | 13,300 | 56 | | 11 | W | 5.71 | 5.87 | 26 | 18 | SE | 13,900 | 15,400 | 84 | | 11 | WM | 5.71 | 5.71 | 172 | 18 | SW | 12,700 | 13,900 | 61 | | 11 | Y&H | 5.86 | 5.88 | 542 | 18 | WM | 10,800 | 13,700 | 26 | | 12 | All | 15,900 | 18,600 | 188 | 18 | Y&H | 12,700 | 13,700 | 95 | | 12 | SE | 15,900 | 19,700 | 81 | 19 | All | 19,000 | 22,800 | 32 | | 12 | Y&H | 16,400 | 19,400 | 52 | 20 | All | 17,400 | 22,700 | 65 | | 13 | All | 5.88 | 6.19 | 188 | 21 | All | 21,300 | 25,400 | 49 | | 13 | EM | 5.88 | 6.19 | 68 | 22 | All | 23,800 | 26,300 | 99 | | 13 | WM | 5.88 | 5.87 | 24 | 22 | L | 26,900 | 28,900 | 22 | | 13 | Y&H | 5.86 | 5.88 | 53 | 22 | SE | 23,300 | 26,300 | 33 | | 14 | All | 5.33 | 5.34 | 368 | 23 | All | 24,000 | 28,200 | 65 | | 14 | EM | 5.31 | 5.31 | 163 | 24 | All | 14,300 | 17,000 | 343 | | 14 | EE | 5.45 | 5.47 | 30 | 24 | EE | 14,700 | 16,500 | 24 | | 14 | Y&H | 5.31 | 5.32 | 77 | 24 | L | 18,600 | 22,000 | 75 | | 15 | All | 11,300 | 11,600 | 330 | 24 | NW | 13,300 | 15,700 | 26 | | 15 | EM | 11,000 | 11,600 | 56 | 24 | SE | 14,800 | 17,000 | 69 | | 15 | L | 15,400 | 15,500 | 30 | 24 | Y&H | 12,700 | 14,500 | 45 | | 15 | SE | 12,500 | 14,300 | 60 | 25 | All | 22,400 | 26,600 | 104 | | 15 | SE | 27,400 | 32,200 | 22 | 25 | SE | 27,400 | 32,200 | 22 | | Group | Region | Median Min | Median Max | Count | Group | Region | Median Min | Median Max | Count | |-------|--------|------------|------------|-------|-------|--------|------------|------------|-------| | 25 | Y&H | 15,200 | 24,700 | 24 | 38 | L | 22,500 | 24,500 | 31 | | 26 | All | 24,400 | 27,400 | 33 | 39 | All | 16,900 | 22,600 | 116 | | 27 | All | 30,200 | 33,600 | 50 | 39 | SE | 16,400 | 20,500 | 25 | | 28 | All | 19,200 | 24,400 | 93 | 39 | Y&H | 18,100 | 22,700 | 28 | | 28 | L | 25,500 | 30,300 | 26 | 40 | All | 5.60 | 5.72 | 256 | | 28 | SE | 19,300 | 24,700 | 24 | 40 | EM | 5.60 | 5.65 | 37 | | 29 | All | 17,400 | 21,500 | 92 | 40 | NW | 5.49 | 6.08 | 21 | | 29 | Y&H | 16,900 | 20,500 | 23 | 40 | SE | 5.80 | 7.07 | 48 | | 30 | All | 24,000 | 28,200 | 217 | 40 | WM | 5.61 | 6.22 | 22 | | 30 | L | 26,200 | 32,700 | 26 | 40 | Y&H | 5.60 | 5.68 | 82 | | 30 | NE | 23,400 | 28,200 | 21 | 41 | All | 17,800 | 20,800 | 122 | | 30 | NW | 22,300 | 26,600 | 31 | 41 | EM | 14,800 | 19,100 | 25 | | 30 | SE | 26,500 | 31,400 | 46 | 41 | L | 22,000 | 25,500 | 29 | | 30 | Y&H | 23,300 | 26,600 | 31 | 41 | SE | 18,900 | 22,000 | 22 | | 31 | All | 13,600 | 15,700 | 237 | 42 | All | 20,400 | 24,000 | 373 | | 31 | EM | 13,600 | 14,500 | 36 | 42 | EM | 16,900 | 18,600 | 39 | | 31 | L | 18,200 | 19,900 | 22 | 42 | L | 24,100 | 26,000 | 67 | | 31 | NE | 13,100 | 14,500 | 21 | 42 | NE | 19,700 | 23,300 | 36 | | 31 | SE | 14,800 | 17,000 | 68 | 42 | SE | 19,100 | 24,700 | 62 | | 31 | WM | 13,600 | 16,500 | 30 | 42 | SW | 17,700 | 23,300 | 25 | | 31 | Y&H | 13,100 | 14,500 | 25 | 42 | WM | 18,200 | 20,700 | 30 | | 32 | All | 19,200 | 22,600 | 269 | 42 | Y&H | 15,000 | 22,700 | 66 | | 32 | L | 22,000 | 24,300 | 87 | 43 | All | 21,900 | 27,400 | 418 | | 32 | SE | 18,500 | 21,800 | 60 | 43 | EE | 22,600 | 28,300 | 46 | | 32 | Y&H | 17,400 | 20,500 | 49 | 43 | EM | 22,700 | 26,300 | 20 | | 33 | All | 35,000 | 39,200 | 77 | 43 | L | 27,500 | 32,800 | 66 | | 33 | L | 39,600 | 42,300 | 20 | 43 | NE | 19,200 | 25,400 | 21 | | 34 | All | 22,800 | 27,400 | 75 | 43 | NW | 21,300 | 25,900 | 22 | | 34 | L | 26,900 | 31,200 | 22 | 43 | SE | 22,000 | 28,200 | 159 | | 36 | All | 15,500 | 18,600 | 280 | 43 | Y&H | 15,200 | 25,400 | 44 | | 36 | EE | 15,200 | 18,600 | 34 | 44 | All | 16,500 | 18,600 | 45 | | 36 | EM | 14,500 | 18,600 | 21 | 45 | All | 26,000 | 29,800 | 113 | | 36 | L | 22,800 | 24,200 | 29 | 45 | L | 32,800 | 35,000 | 28 | | 36 | NE | 14,800 | 16,500 | 25 | 45 | SE | 25,200 | 30,400 | 29 | | 36 | NW | 13,200 | 16,500 | 28 | 45 | Y&H | 23,400 | 28,200 | 22 | | 36 | SE | 17,400 | 20,900 | 76 | 46 | All | 12,700 | 13,700 | 444 | | 36 | Y&H | 14,400 | 16,500 | 32 | 46 | EE | 12,700 | 13,300 | 42 | | 37 | All | 17,600 | 20,500 | 430 | 46 | EM | 10,900 | 13,300 | 45 | | 37 | EE | 16,900 | 19,700 | 43 | 46 | L | 14,500 | 16,000 | 42 | | 37 | L | 23,400 | 26,200 | 50 | 46 | NE | 11,900 | 13,300 | 24 | | 37 | SE | 19,400 | 23,400 | 57 | 46 | NW | 12,700 | 13,300 | 23 | | 37 | SW | 19,800 | 22,300 | 20 | 46 | SE | 12,800 | 14,500 | 105 | | 37 | Y&H | 13,900 | 16,500 | 41 | 46 | SW | 12,700 | 13,700 | 30 | | 38 | All | 18,300 | 21,800 | 105 | 46 | W | 12,700 | 13,300 | 25 | | Group | Region | Median Min | Median Max | Count | Group | Region | Median Min | Median Max | Count | |-------|--------|------------|------------|-------|-------|--------|------------|------------|-------| | 46 | WM | 12,700 | 13,400 | 21 | 52 | EM | 13,600 | 14,500 | 32 | | 46 | Y&H | 10,900 | 13,300 | 71 | 52 | L | 16,700 | 18,500 | 37 | | 47 | All | 20,400 | 22,600 | 83 | 52 | SE | 15,200 | 17,200 | 80 | | 47 | L | 21,400 | 24,600 | 23 | 52 | WM | 14,800 | 16,500 | 40 | | 47 | SE | 20,200 | 22,000 | 25 | 52 | Y&H | 13,600 | 14,900 | 33 | | 48 | All | 14,200 | 17,400 | 34 | 53 | All | 29,800 | 33,600 | 217 | | 49 | All | 16,900 | 19,200 | 84 | 53 | L | 32,200 | 37,400 | 46 | | 49 | Y&H | 17,400 | 19,100 | 38 | 53 | SE | 28,500 | 34,100 | 47 | | 51 | All | 17,000 | 19,700 | 279 | 55 | All | 20,900 | 22,600 | 22 | | 51 | EM | 15,000 | 17,000 | 20 | 56 | All | 21,300 | 23,400 | 138 | | 51 | L | 24,100 | 24,900 | 73 | 56 | SE | 23,400 | 26,900 | 27 | | 51 | SE | 17,400 | 20,000 | 49 | 56 | Y&H | 17,400 | 20,500 | 23 | | 51 | Y&H | 14,800 | 18,600 | 32 | 57 | All | 21,900 | 25,500 | 55 | | 52 | All | 14,500 | 16,500 | 288 | Retail Price Index

The annual change in the Consumer prices index for February 2005 was 1.6%. The February 2005 all items headline RPI was 3.2%, higher than in February 2004. The underlying index (excluding mortgage interest) remained at 2.1%. The annual change in the tax price index, which includes the effects of changes to direct taxation and National Insurance, was 3.1%. Over the same period RPIY, which measures inflation excluding the effect of indirect taxes as well as mortgage interest payments, stayed at 2.0%.

Table 3.1.1: CPI, RPI, RPIX and PPI

| Consumer Prices Index | Retail Prices Index (headline-all items) | Underlying Index (exc. mortgage interest payments) | Producer Prices Index (output) | |-----------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | CPI | RPI | RPIX | PPI | | Index 1996 = 100 | Index 1987 = 100 | Index 1987 = 100 | Index 2000 = 100 | | Annual change | Annual % | Annual % | Annual % | | 2004 | | | | | Mar 110.6 | 1.1 | 184.6 | 2.6 | | Apr 111.0 | 1.2 | 185.7 | 2.5 | | May 111.4 | 1.5 | 186.5 | 2.8 | | June 111.3 | 1.6 | 186.8 | 3.0 | | July 111.0 | 1.4 | 186.8 | 3.0 | | Aug 111.3 | 1.3 | 187.4 | 3.2 | | Sep 111.4 | 1.1 | 188.1 | 3.1 | | Oct 111.7 | 1.2 | 188.6 | 3.3 | | Nov 111.9 | 1.5 | 189.0 | 3.4 | | Dec 112.5 | 1.6 | 189.9 | 3.5 | | 2005 | | | | | Jan 111.9 | 1.6 | 188.9 | 3.2 | | Feb 112.2 | 1.6 | 189.6 | 3.2 |

Ten independent forecasts of inflation for the first quarter of 2005 range between 3.1% and 3.5%, and have a mean of 3.3%.

Table 3.1.2: RPI forecasts

| | 2005 Qtr 1 | 2005 Qtr 2 | 2005 Qtr 3 | 2005 Qtr 4 | |----------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------| | Upper range | 3.5% | 3.5% | 3.2% | 3.0% | | Mean | 3.3% | 3.2% | 2.8% | 2.6% | | Lower range | 3.1% | 3.0% | 2.7% | 2.3% |

Source: Industrial Relations Services House Price Indices

Figure 3.2.1 Monthly and Annual house price inflation

Table 3.2.1: Percentage change in house prices

| Annual | Mar - 04 | Apr - 04 | May - 04 | Jun - 04 | Jul - 04 | Aug - 04 | Sep - 04 | Oct - 04 | Nov - 04 | Dec - 04 | Jan - 05 | Feb - 05 | |--------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------| | FT | 15.5 | 16.7 | 17.5 | 17.8 | 17.7 | 16.9 | 15.6 | 13.9 | 11.9 | 11.2 | 10.7 | 10.2 | | ODPM | 7.0 | 9.6 | 11.4 | 13.5 | 13.9 | 13.3 | 13.3 | 12.2 | 13.4 | 10.5 | | | | Halifax| 18.5 | 19.1 | 20.4 | 21.5 | 22.1 | 21.3 | 20.5 | 18.5 | 16.8 | 15.1 | 13.7 | 12.1 |

| Monthly | FT | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.6 | -0.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | | | ODPM | 0.1 | 4.5 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 1.2 | -0.3 | 0.7 | -0.1 | -0.7 | | | | | Halifax | 2.2 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | -0.5 | 1.3 | -1.2 | -0.2 | 1.4 | 0.7 | -0.5 |

How house price inflation is measured. There are a number of indices which measure UK house price inflation. Each index provides a different perspective, at different times, of the huge and diverse housing market. Each helps to contribute, alongside the other indices, to an understanding of price movements in the market.

Halifax index – Views of what is happening in their segment of the mortgage market, at the offer stage, are seen through the Halifax House price Index. The Halifax index is based on some 14% of mortgages made nationally. The data is adjusted for seasonal variations and the mix of properties sold in any particular period.

ODPM index – The ODPM provides a view of mortgage completions, using some 20% of mortgages. These figures are mix-adjusted but not seasonally adjusted.

FT index – The FT index is based on Land Registry data. Because the Land Registry publishes data per quarter the FT index uses forecasting and revises and updates its statistics with Land Registry results as they are released, normally around the end of the relevant quarter. By adopting this approach the FT index aims to aid significant timeliness to the Land Registry data. Unemployment

ILO unemployment

ILO unemployment over the November to January 2005 quarter stood at 1,376,000 or 4.7% of the economically active population in Great Britain, a decrease of 23,000 over the same quarter a year ago. Breaking the figures down by gender shows that ILO unemployment levels are higher for men (802,000 or 5.1%) than for women (574,000 or 4.3%). Total ILO unemployment figures are higher than claimant count figures, mainly due to higher estimates of female unemployment.

Table 4.1.1: ILO unemployment\*

| | Total | | | | |------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | | No. | Rate | No. | Rate | No. | Rate | | Nov-Jan 2003 | 1,431 | 5.0 | 847 | 5.4 | 584 | 4.5 | | Nov-Jan 2004 | 1,399 | 4.8 | 833 | 5.3 | 566 | 4.3 | | Feb-Apr 2004 | 1,394 | 4.8 | 814 | 5.2 | 580 | 4.4 | | May-Jul 2004 | 1,378 | 4.7 | 801 | 5.1 | 577 | 4.3 | | Aug-Oct 2004 | 1,352 | 4.7 | 774 | 4.9 | 577 | 4.3 | | Nov-Jan 2005 | 1,376 | 4.7 | 802 | 5.1 | 574 | 4.3 |

- ILO unemployment counts as unemployed all those without work, who is actively seeking work and is available for work. Levels and rates are those aged 16 and over.

‡ ILO unemployment rate is the number of ILO unemployed as a percentage of economically active people.

Source: Office for National Statistics

The graph below shows the ILO Unemployment rate of the economically active population in Great Britain has remained the same since the May to July 2004 quarter.

Figure 4.1.1: ILO unemployment rate Claimant count unemployment

Claimants count unemployment remained the same over the month.

Table 4.1.2: Claimant count unemployment

| | Total | Men | Women | |-------|-------|-----|-------| | | No. | Rate | No. | Rate | No. | Rate | | 2004 | | | | | | | | Feb | 852.3 | 2.9 | 636.0 | 4.0 | 216.3 | 1.6 | | Mar | 849.7 | 2.9 | 633.5 | 4.0 | 216.2 | 1.6 | | Apr | 844.2 | 2.8 | 630.9 | 4.0 | 213.3 | 1.6 | | May | 830.3 | 2.7 | 618.5 | 3.8 | 211.8 | 1.5 | | June | 820.1 | 2.7 | 610.8 | 3.7 | 209.3 | 1.5 | | July | 806.0 | 2.7 | 601.7 | 3.7 | 204.3 | 1.5 | | Aug | 800.8 | 2.6 | 596.9 | 3.6 | 203.9 | 1.5 | | Sep | 804.3 | 2.7 | 598.9 | 3.7 | 205.4 | 1.5 | | Oct | 806.9 | 2.7 | 600.6 | 3.7 | 206.3 | 1.5 | | Nov | 803.5 | 2.7 | 596.4 | 3.6 | 207.1 | 1.5 | | Dec | 797.2 | 2.6 | 590.8 | 3.6 | 206.4 | 1.5 | | 2005 | | | | | | | | Jan | 784.3 | 2.6 | 580.6 | 3.5 | 203.7 | 1.5 | | Feb | 784.3 | 2.6 | 580.6 | 3.5 | 203.7 | 1.5 |

‡ The rate is the number of claimant unemployed as a percentage of the total workforce. Source: Office for National Statistics

Regional unemployment

Claimant count rates range from 1.5% in the South East to 3.8% in the North East. ILO rates are lowest in the South West (3.6%) and highest in London (7.0%)

Table 4.1.3: Regional unemployment

| | ILO unemployment November – January 2005 | Claimant count, February 2005 | |-------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | | No. | Rate | No. | Rate | | North East | 65 | 5.5 | 43.7 | 3.8 | | North West & Merseyside | 151 | 4.5 | 93.5 | 2.7 | | Yorkshire & the Humber | 109 | 4.4 | 69.4 | 2.8 | | East Midlands | 90 | 4.2 | 49.7 | 2.4 | | West Midlands | 126 | 4.8 | 83.6 | 3.1 | | East | 113 | 4.0 | 54.7 | 2.0 | | London | 264 | 7.0 | 158.7 | 3.4 | | South East | 161 | 3.8 | 67.0 | 1.5 | | South West | 92 | 3.6 | 40.0 | 1.6 | | Wales | 57 | 4.1 | 38.4 | 2.9 | | Scotland | 147 | 5.7 | 85.6 | 3.3 |

Great Britain | 1,376 | 4.7 | 784.3 | 2.6 |

Source: Office for National Statistics Employment

The number of people in employment in the United Kingdom, using the LFS definition, increased by 127,000 between November to January 2005 compared with the previous quarter. During this period male employment increased by 63,000 and female full time employment increased by 111,000. Female part-time employment decreased by 46,000. Looking at figures over the year from November to January 2005 shows that employment increased by 220,000. Male employment over the year increased by 139,000, and female full time employment increased by 222,000. Female part-time employment decreased by 142,000.

Table 4.2.1: LFS employment

| | Total | Men | Women | | | |------------------|-------|-----|-------|----------|----------| | | | | | Full-time| Part-time| | Nov-Jan 2003 | 28,067| 15,208| 7,255 | 5,604 | | Nov-Jan 2004 | 28,347| 15,302| 7,255 | 5,791 | | Feb-Apr 2004 | 28,382| 15,338| 7,259 | 5,785 | | May-Jul 2004 | 28,385| 15,347| 7,298 | 5,740 | | Aug-Oct 2004 | 28,440| 15,378| 7,366 | 5,695 | | **Nov-Jan 2005** | **28,567**| **15,441**| **7,477**| **5,649**|

- The LFS definition of employment covers those who did any paid work (even as little as one hour) in the week prior to the survey interview, and those who have a job, which they are temporarily away from.

Source: Office for National Statistics

As the graph below shows the LFS employment rate has risen to 60.2% of all economically active people aged 16 and over.

Figure 4.2.1: LFS employment rate

### Local Government Datafile

Profiles of local government workforce and the wider economy, Autumn 2004

(percentage distributions)

| | Local Government (%) | Whole Economy (%) | |------------------|----------------------|-------------------| | **Age** | | | | 16-24 | 7 | 16 | | 25-39 | 30 | 36 | | 40-49 | 31 | 24 | | 50 plus | 32 | 24 | | **Gender** | | | | Male | 28 | 51 | | Female | 72 | 49 | | **Ethnicity** | | | | White | 93.3 | 92.1 | | Mixed | 0.6 | 0.7 | | Asian | 2.9 | 3.7 | | Black | 2.4 | 2.2 | | Chinese | 0.2 | 0.4 | | Other | 0.5 | 0.9 | | **Job type** | | | | Permanent | 91 | 94 | | Temporary | 9 | 6 | | **Type of temporary work** | | | | Seasonal | 0.1 | 0.4 | | Fixed contract/task | 6.0 | 2.6 | | Agency | 0.8 | 1.1 | | Casual | 1.1 | 1.2 | | Other | 1.0 | 0.7 | | **Job-related training** | | | | Any in 3 months | 37 | 30 | | Any in 4 weeks | 19 | 17 | | **Long-term health problem** | | | | Yes | 25 | 22 | | No | 75 | 78 |

Source: Labour Force Survey, September – November 2004

Note: Figures are for England and Wales only

Whole economy figures are for employees only

Local government figures exclude teachers, firefighters and police, but will include some elements beyond the LGS group, for example chief officers and craft workers

Since this is a sample survey percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

For ethnicity and types of temporary work first decimal place is given to provide more detail, but care should be taken in interpreting small differences.

As percentages are rounded they do not necessarily add to 100. Employee Jobs in Local Government, June 2004

The tables that follow show the provisional key results of the Employers Organisation’s Local Government Employment Survey (LGES) for June 2004.

A full report on the LGES 2004 was published in the November 2004 Digest.

We must emphasise that the estimates of change (Tables 5.2.5 and 5.2.6) should be handled with caution. We have made considerable efforts, with the help of authorities, to check figures for 2003 as well as 2004. In constructing an estimate of change we have had to reach judgements on whether to include or exclude figures for particular authorities. Some data had to be excluded, usually where an authority reported substantial change in numbers for a particular service but was unable to explain why this has occurred, or said that the 2003 figures were wrong but could not provide correct figures. The change figures for the remaining authorities were then grossed up (separately for each type of authority) to provide estimates relating to all authorities.

Each figure presented in tables 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 are rounded to the nearest thousand to reflect their approximate nature. Please note that numbers may not add precisely to column and row totals because of rounding.

Table 5.2.1: Employee jobs in local government as at June 2004 by local authority type

| Local Authority Type | Male Full-time | Male Part-time | Female Full-time | Female Part-time | Total | |----------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------------|------------------|-------| | Counties | 107015 | 46251 | 213319 | 416031 | 782616| | Metropolitan districts | 119372 | 28706 | 173779 | 224019 | 545876| | English unitaries | 73800 | 26673 | 113756 | 180677 | 394905| | London boroughs | 58759 | 13439 | 91458 | 89338 | 252994| | Welsh unitaries | 35600 | 11696 | 49504 | 67274 | 164074| | Shire districts | 57880 | 11090 | 40990 | 33823 | 143783| | **Total** | **452425** | **137855** | **682805** | **1011162** | **2284248** | Table 5.2.2: Employee jobs in local government as at June 2004 by region

| Region | Male Full-time | Male Part-time | Female Full-time | Female Part-time | Total | |-------------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------------|------------------|---------| | South East | 50254 | 17268 | 89638 | 141744 | 298904 | | North West | 64187 | 18165 | 97702 | 130854 | 310908 | | Yorkshire and the Humberside | 52727 | 13703 | 69039 | 119998 | 255467 | | London | 58759 | 13439 | 91458 | 89338 | 252994 | | West Midlands | 45996 | 15756 | 77249 | 116113 | 255115 | | South West | 38559 | 14385 | 55766 | 101193 | 209905 | | East Midlands | 37270 | 12999 | 53868 | 92788 | 196926 | | North East | 33772 | 7662 | 41806 | 51740 | 134980 | | East | 35302 | 12781 | 56774 | 100119 | 204975 | | England | 416825 | 126159 | 633301 | 943888 | 2120174 | | Wales | 35600 | 11696 | 49504 | 67274 | 164074 | | **Total** | **452425** | **137855** | **682805** | **1011162** | **2284248** |

Table 5.2.3: Employee jobs in local government in England as at June 2004 by function

| Function | Male Full-time | Male Part-time | Female Full-time | Female Part-time | Total | |---------------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------------|------------------|---------| | Education – teachers | 105340 | 23066 | 249168 | 138355 | 515930 | | Education – other employees | 46921 | 47541 | 123137 | 509016 | 726615 | | Services direct to the public | 165106 | 34283 | 86792 | 126791 | 412971 | | Social services | 37547 | 13103 | 106495 | 130862 | 288006 | | Corporate functions | 61911 | 8166 | 67709 | 38865 | 176652 | | **Total** | **416825** | **126159** | **633301** | **943888** | **2120174** |

Table 5.2.4: Employee jobs in local government in Wales as at June 2004 by function

| Function | Male Full-time | Male Part-time | Female Full-time | Female Part-time | Total | |---------------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------------|------------------|---------| | Education – teachers | 8085 | 2364 | 17414 | 9450 | 37313 | | Education – other employees | 3078 | 3074 | 10910 | 30548 | 47611 | | Services direct to the public | 17014 | 4507 | 7074 | 10949 | 39543 | | Social services | 2990 | 1380 | 9260 | 14094 | 27724 | | Corporate functions | 4433 | 371 | 4846 | 2234 | 11884 | | **Total** | **35600** | **11696** | **49504** | **67274** | **164074** | Table 5.2.5: Change in numbers employed by authority type, June 2003 – June 2004

| Authority Type | Male Full-time | Male Part-time | Female Full-time | Female Part-time | Total | |----------------------|----------------|----------------|------------------|------------------|-------| | Counties | 1000 | 1000 | 5000 | 11000 | 18000 | | Met districts | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 0 | 2000 | | English unitaries | -1000 | 0 | 3000 | 2000 | 5000 | | London boroughs | 0 | -1000 | 1000 | -1000 | -13000| | Welsh unitaries | 0 | 1000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Shire districts | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1000 | -1000 | | **Total** | -1000 | 1000 | 11000 | 0 | 12000 |

Table 5.2.6: Change in numbers employed by function, June 2003 – 2004

| Function | Male Full-time | Male Part-time | Female Full-time | Female Part-time | Total | |-----------------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------------|------------------|-------| | Education – teachers | -2000 | 0 | 0 | 4000 | 2000 | | Education – other employees | 2000 | 1000 | 8000 | 7000 | 19000 | | Services direct to the public | -4000 | -1000 | -2000 | -7000 | -14000| | Social services | 0 | 0 | 3000 | -4000 | 0 | | Corporate functions | 3000 | 0 | 3000 | 0 | 6000 |

Aggregate figures for each authority type broken down by function are available on the EO website at www.lg-employers.gov.uk. Total figures broken down by gender and full-time/part-time status for each authority on a named basis will be sent to all local authorities’ Heads of Personnel, and are available to others on request. Authorities can also request employment figures by function for other authorities of the same type or within the same region.

For further information please contact Roopal Shah (020-7296-6510, roopal.shah@lg-employers.gov.uk). Current Position of Negotiating Groups at 31/3/05

This summary of the pay negotiations across local government is provided for brief, background information only. On no account should it be used as authorisation of any changes in pay and conditions. The dates of the “next meetings” refer to known, planned meetings of the employers and/or both sides of a negotiating body. There is no implication that the meetings listed are necessarily discussing annual pay increases. Advice and detailed information to non-local authority bodies may be provided on a separate subscription. Please note that the contact names are for the use of local authorities only.

| Local Government Negotiating Groups | Effective Date | |-------------------------------------|----------------| | Local Government Services (E&W) | 1/04/04 | | (Former APT&C and Manual employees) | | | Contact: Harry Honnor | | | Tel: 020 7296 6826 | | | E-mail: harry.honnor@lg-employers.gov.uk | | | **Settlement:** An equal increase on all spinal column points to cover the period to April 2007: 1 Apr 04 – 2.75%; 1 Apr 05 – 2.95%; 1 Apr 06 – 2.95% or the rate of RPI increase for October 2005, whichever is the higher. The pay settlement is at the upper limit of what councils could afford to pay but is attached to a six point reform plan. This includes completion of local pay reviews in all authorities by 31st March 2007. For further details go to: [http://www.lg-employers.gov.uk/press/2004_news/lgc_14_07.html](http://www.lg-employers.gov.uk/press/2004_news/lgc_14_07.html) |

| Chief Executives (E&W) | 1/7/02 | | Contact: Debbie Carvalho | | | Tel: 020 7296 6762 | | | E-mail: debbie.carvalho@lg-employers.gov.uk | | | **Claim:** Negotiations are currently in progress. |

| Chief Officers (E&W) | | | Contact: Debbie Carvalho | | | Tel: 020 7296 6762 | | | E-mail: debbie.carvalho@lg-employers.gov.uk | | | **Claim:** Trade unions are currently consulting with their members. In outline the officers side are seeking: a substantial increase on all salary points and associated allowances; increases to paid maternity leave; and urgent completion of investigation into the effects of new political structures on CO’s posts - agreed as part of the 2002/03 settlement. |

| Local Authority Craft and Associated Employees (E&W) | | | Employees: 41,000 | Contact: Harry Honnor | | Tel: 020 7296 6826 | E-mail: harry.honnor@lg-employers.gov.uk | | **Employers Revised Offer:** Agreement has now been reached on a three-year pay increase in the following three stages covering the period to 31 March 2007: | | 1 April 2004 – 2.75% | | 1 April 2005 – 2.95% | | 1 April 2006 – 2.95%\* (or RPI at October 2005, whichever is the greater) | | \*Given that the rates of pay and allowances applicable from 1 April 2006 | Local Authority Craft and Associated Employees (E&W) - Cont’d

may be subject to the RPI figure at October 2005, those rates will be published nearer that time. Agreement has now been reached on a three-year pay increase for tools allowances, together with the maximum liability for insurance purposes, in the following three stages covering the period to 31 March 2007:

1 April 2004 – 100% (based on Tools Allowances & Insurance rates at 31 March 2004) 1 April 2005 – a further 33% (also based on Tools Allowances & Insurance rates at 31 March 2004) 1 April 2006 – 2.95% (or RPI at October 2005, whichever is the greater) (based on Tools Allowances & Insurance rates at 31 March 2006)

Education Primary and Secondary Teachers (E&W) Contact: Andy Inett Tel: 020 7296 6725 E-mail: andy.inett@lg-employers.gov.uk Settlement: an increase of 2.5% from 1 April 2004, 2.5% from 1 April 2005 and a further 0.75% from 1 September to 31 August 2006 in the values of: the main pay scale and upper pay scale for qualified teachers; the pay spine for leadership groups; the pay spine for Advanced Skills Teachers; and the pay scale for unqualified teachers.

Teachers in Residential Establishments (E&W) Contact: Andy Inett Tel: 020 7296 6725 E-mail: andy.inett@lg-employers.gov.uk Settlement: The JNC agreed that the Main and Upper Pay Scales for qualified teachers in residential social services establishments should be subject to a general increase of 2.5% from 1 April 2004, 2.5% from 1 April 2005, and a further 0.75% from 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006.

All allowances applicable to teachers in social services establishments and Heads, deputies and Assistant heads in residential special schools were increased by the same percentage amounts as were the salaries.

Youth & Community Workers (E&W) Employees estimated at between 30,000-35,000 Contact: James Mensah Tel: 020 7296 6727 E-mail: james.mensah@lg-employers.gov.uk Settlement. 2 year settlement: 1st year – 2.75% from 1st September 2004 to 31st August 2005. 2nd year – 2.95% from 1st September 2005 to 31st August 2006.

There has also been an agreement to: Set up a JNC Advanced Practitioner Grade (Apg) Working Group to develop proposals for an APG for JNC Youth and Community Workers, work towards an implementation deadline of 1 September 2005. Soulbury Committee (E&W) 1/9/04

Advisors / Psychologists / Youth Service Employees: 6,792 as at March 1st 2002 Contact: Andy Inett Tel: 020 7296 6725 E-mail: andy.inett@lg-employers.gov.uk Settlement: 3 year settlement: 1st year- a 2.75% increase on all salary points from 1 September 2004; rising to 2.95% from 1 April 2005 (based on 31 August 2004 figures) 2nd year- a 2.95% increase on all salary points from 1 September 2005 3rd year- a 2.95% increase on all salary points from 1 September 2006 or the RPI rate for April 2006 if higher.

Police and Fire Firefighters (UK) 1/11/02 Contact: Gill Gittins Tel: 020 7296 6723 E-mail: gill.gittins@lg-employers.gov.uk Firefighters: 56,547 including 17,882 Retained firefighters Settlement date: 1st July 2005. settlement to be reached by use of an agreed formula.

Chief Fire Officers (UK) 1/1/03 Contact: Gill Gittins Tel: 020 7296 6723 E-mail: gill.gittins@lg-employers.gov.uk Settlement: Annual settlement date is 1st January. Negotiations

Police and Fire – Cont-d

incorporating a review of the terms and conditions of employment of principal fire officers are currently taking place.

Police

Police Federated Ranks (UK) 1/9/04 Employees: 148,000 Federated Rank Officers. Contact: Graham Baird Tel: 020 7296 6722 E-mail: graham.baird@lg-employers.gov.uk Settlement: Police Negotiating Board agreed a 3% uplift from 1st Sept 04.

Police Staff (E&W) 1/9/04 Employees: 66,000 Contact: Graham Baird Tel: 020 7296 6722 E-mail: graham.baird@lg-employers.gov.uk Settlement: The Police Staff Council (Eng & Wales) have agreed to increase pay and standby allowance by 3% with effect from 1st Sept 04. Recent & Forthcoming Publications

- **Are you getting the most from the EO?** The EO offers a wide range of services to local authorities in all areas related to people-led improvement. We can offer you everything from free telephone advice to improvement tool kits, and consultancy work. To find out exactly how we can help your authority, please go to: [http://www.lg-employers.gov.uk/about/order_booklet.html](http://www.lg-employers.gov.uk/about/order_booklet.html) to order a copy of our new Corporate guide.

- **Just out of reach** - The recent equal pay award at North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, which could lead to wage increases for thousands of female health workers, provides a glimmer of hope in an otherwise gloomy landscape (People Management 10th March 2005, page 26. ISSN 1358 6297. Call CIPD 020 8971 9000 or [www.peoplemanagement.co.uk](http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk))

- **Burden of proof** - HR is responsible for both giving and receiving employee references. But in today’s litigious society, how much information can you safely include? (People Management 24th February 2005, page 30. ISSN 1358 6297. Call CIPD 020 8971 9000 or [www.peoplemanagement.co.uk](http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk))

- **Outside chance** - Too many companies leave recruitment processes to chance, gambling on the probability of hiring the right candidate. Surely a systematic business approach would be a better alternative? (People Management 10th March 2005, page 38. ISSN 1358 6297. Call CIPD 020 8971 9000 or [www.peoplemanagement.co.uk](http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk))

- **Survey** - Money talks: annual leave (2) (IRS Employment Review 819 ISSN 1358-2216, available on subscription from Industrial Relations Services Ltd., tel. 020 8662 2000, website: [www.irsemploymentreview.com](http://www.irsemploymentreview.com)).

- **Feature** - From brick walls to firewalls: developing skills agreements (IRS Employment Review 817 ISSN 1358-2216, available on subscription from Industrial Relations Services Ltd., tel. 020 8662 2000, website: [www.irsemploymentreview.com](http://www.irsemploymentreview.com)).

- **Labour Market Trends March 2005** - features this month include:

  - Labour market participation: the influence of social capital

(Subscription enquiries for Labour Market Trends to: Subscriptions Department, The Stationery Office Publications Centre, PO BOX 276, London SW8 5DT, 020 7873 8499). Research & Intelligence Publications

Councillors Surveys: Exit Survey of Local authority councillors in England 2003 Survey of newly elected Local authority councillors in England 2003 Second National census of Local authority councillors in England and Wales 2001 Link to all 3: http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/diversity/councillors/index.html

Recruitment and Retention Teacher Resignation and Recruitment Report No. 33, Main Report 2002 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/documents/publications/r&i/trr02.doc Local Government Recruitment and Retention Survey 2004 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/publications/fullpublications/randr.html

Sickness Absence Surveys Local Government Sickness Absence Levels 2003/2004 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/publications/fullpublications/lgsa2000.html Local Government Sickness Absence Management Survey 2003 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/publications/fullpublications/lgsas.html Report on Sickness Absence Levels and Management 2004 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/health/manage/index.html Social Services Sickness Absence Survey 2001-2 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/publications/fullpublications/sssa.html

Social Services: Social Services Workforce Survey Report No. 33, Main Report 2003 (http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/recruit/workforce_surveys/social.html)

Other Surveys: Care sector NVQ Take-up Survey 2003 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/recruit/workforce_surveys/shcwg/doing.html Quarterly Monitoring of Care Sector NVQs/SVQs - July - September 2004 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/recruit/workforce_surveys/shcwg/doing.html People Skills Scoreboard Survey 2004 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/skills/people/pss.html Local Government Employment Survey (Figures by Function) 2004 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/conditions/surveys/index.html Single Status/Local Pay Reviews survey Autumn 2004 http://www.lq-employers.gov.uk/conditions/lgs/index.html

For details of the publications please go the listed web addresses or contact Roopal Shah, telephone 020-7296-6510 or visit our website at www.lq-employers.gov.uk

## Index By Subject (March 2004- February 2005)

| Subject | Month | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------| | **Sickness Absence** | | | | Absence policies and absence levels: is there a correlation? | August 04 | 13-16 | | Managing Sickness Absence in the public sector | December 04 | 7-8 | | Sickness absence levels and causes survey 2003/2004 | December 04 | 13-15 | | Sickness Absence in Shire Districts- data from the BVPI | January 05 | 11-13 | | Causes of sickness absence amongst larger authorities in England and Wales | February 05 | 11-14 | | **Local Government Pay and Workforce** | | | | The gender pay gap– levels, causes and strategy | April 04 | 9-12 | | Single Status Pay Survey – June 2003 | May 04 | 7-10 | | Flexible working – Methods and case studies | June 04 | 11-14 | | Key findings from the Social Services Workforce Survey 2003 | July 04 | 7-10 | | JNC Survey of Chief Executives and Chief Officers | October 04 | 10-11 | | Local Government Employment Survey 2004 | November 04 | 10-11 | | Market Pay Survey - Extract 4 | November 04 | 16 | | Single Status progress and pay levels from the IDS local | February 05 | 8-10 | | Government pay benchmarking survey and EO surveys | | | | **External Economy Pay** | | | | Graduate Employment Market | March 04 | 6-7 | | Managing Labour Turnover | March 04 | 8-9 | | Budget 2004 – Labour Market Implications | March 04 | 10-11 | | Hours and holidays 2003/2004 | April 04 | 7-8 | | Flexible working in the UK – Data from social trends | June 04 | 7-10 | | A Zonal Approach to pay modelling | July 04 | 11-13 | | National Management Salary Survey 2004 | October 04 | 12-14 | | Pay and Conditions in Call Centres 2004 - IDS | November 04 | 7-9 | | **Training** | | | | Summary of key data from the 2003 survey of care sector NVQ centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland | August 04 | 6-9 | | Skills base in the planning system – Executive Summary | December 04 | 9-12 | | People Skills Scoreboard 2004 | February 05 | 15-18 | | **Other Labour Market Issues** | | | | Ageing and Gender: diversity and change | May 04 | 11-13 | | Recruitment hotspots – a critique of solutions | May 04 | 14-16 | | Summary of teacher resignation and recruitment 2003 | August 04 | 10-12 | | Internet Recruitment: benefits and approaches | September 04| 6-9 | | The challenge of succession planning in Local Government | September 04| 10-13 | | Recruitment and Retention Survey 2004 | October 04 | 6-9 | | Clerical operative report 2005 | January 05 | 8-10 | The Employers’ Organisation is an agency of the Local Government Association (LGA). We are the representative voice of local authority employers and help councils to maximise the capacity and performance of their employees and improve services. We provide strategic direction, advice, intelligence and support on all pay and workforce issues such as: pay and conditions, skills development, diversity, pensions and employment law. The Research & Intelligence unit focuses specifically on:

- surveys and research on a range of employment issues to inform the national pay and conditions negotiations and also to meet the information requirements of the Local Government Association, Government Departments and other commissioning organisations.

For further information, please contact: The Employers’ Organisation, Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG.

Telephone 020 7296 6600 Fax 020 7296 6660 www.lg-employers.gov.uk

Enquiries to R&I: Executive Editor Nick Shasha Tel: 020 7296 6765 nick.shasha@lg-employers.gov.uk

Editor Roopal Shah Tel: 020 7296 6510 roopal.shah@lg-employers.gov.uk

Number 336 March 2005- ISSN 0957-512X